Solar Update June 2014 – The sun is still slumping along

The following is a series of graphs that depict the current and past state of the sun.

Figure 1: Solar Cycle 24 relative to the Dalton Minimum

Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger.

Figure 2: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 to 2014

The strength of the current solar cycle is confirmed by the F10.7 which is not subject to observer bias. Solar Cycle 24 is now five and a half years long.

Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 to 2014

The biggest change in solar activity for the current cycle is in magnetic activity which is now at the floor of activity for the period 1932 to 2007.

Figure 4: Heliospheric Tilt Angle 1976 to 2014

Peak of the solar cycle has occurred when heliospheric tilt angle reaches 73°. For Solar Cycle 24, this was in February 2013. It is now heading down to the 24/25 minimum.

Figure 5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 to 2014

This looks like a more muted version of the Ap Index. The main difference between them is that the IMF was a lot flatter over Solar Cycle 20 than the Ap Index.

Figure 6: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths 1976 to 2014

This is one of the more important graphs in the set in that it can have predictive ability. The SODA index pioneered by Schatten is based on the sum of the poloidal fields and the F10.7 flux. This methodology starts getting accurate for the next cycle a few years before solar minimum. If Solar Cycle 24 proves to be twelve years long, as Solar Cycle 5 was, then the SODA index may start being accurate from about 2016. In terms of solar cycle length, the only estimate in the public domain is from extrapolating Hathaway’s diagram off his image. Hathaway’s curve-fitting suggests that the Solar Cyce 24/25 minimum will be in late 2022. If so, Solar Cycle 24 will be thirteen years long, a little longer than Solar Cycle 23.

It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain. The reputational risk for solar physicists in making a prediction remains too great.

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

332 thoughts on “Solar Update June 2014 – The sun is still slumping along”

This graph reproducing the AMO has its root in the solar magnetic cycle. Since than I’ve been trying to find out if there is any other way of reproducing the AMO, in case the science for some reason agrees with the ‘solar output’ variability has no influence.
Let’s assume that solar sunspot and magnetic activity are entirely random (no sunspot or Hale cycles), but activity is still present say at an averaged level experienced during the 24 cycles of the known observations.
Question is: Would the AMO exist? In such a case could the sun still be the driver of the multidecadal temperature variability? After more than a year of deliberation, I finally concluded yes; and it is possible to demonstrate it with the existing data.

MattN says:
“We need to see some cooling, not just non-warming, and soon.”
Unfortunately cooling is the last thing we need, although it is the more likely scenario. Our planet is always healthier when warmer, not when cooler.

It will be interesting to read the remainder of David Evans findings. These graphs show us (possibly) why we have the hiatus. If his work looks promising, it will go along way into creating models that can actually be of use for trending temperatures.

This would not on its own be very convincing without more cases. However 10,000 years of solar proxies show that there is a cycle averaging 208 years. Sunspot numbers for the last few hundred years show a maximum correlation at about 211 years.

MattN, speak for yourself, mate! Here in England we were looking forward to warming. We are very disappointed. Sure, the BBC THINK it has warmed, but not so much, and everyone at the BBC is stark raving mad anyway. Sod cooling, we were hoping for a return to the summer of ’75 and ’76 here.

I agree with MattN, cooling would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the world’s people.

But I don’t think that Jantar meant the “world” needs cooling. I think he meant that to be plausible, the solar-variation theory of climate needs cooling. Otherwise, the theory may fail to explain the observed global climate.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 18, 2014 at 4:38 amSod cooling, we were hoping for a return to the summer of ’75 and ’76 here.
Last week (on the hottest day of the year so far) I emailed TonyB that based on the CET’s daily maximum temperatures, that the forthcoming summer will be cooler than the 20 year average. I did similar estimate for the last winter being warmer than the average, that proved correct, this time we’ll see

I would prefer cooling at the expense of lesser prosperity, in return for freedom from the current oppresive warmist agenda.
However, I’m not so naive as to think that anything would change much politically in either scenario. Let’s face it: warm or cold, the political elite will twist things either way to convince the useful idiots that whatever happens’s it’s worse than we thought and all our fault, and make us pay. This is, sadly, the nature of the beast.

Hathaway’s curve-fitting suggests that the Solar Cyce 24/25 minimum will be in late 2022. …It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain.

Dr. Archibald,
Do you have a number for SSN25?
Hathaway rejected as impossible my SC24 extrapolation of around 80 for SC24, at the time he was predicting ‘the strongest cycle ever’.
I would estimate that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of 7 for SC25 is far too low, and would go for a symbolic SSN=25 for the SC25.

Jantar says:
June 18, 2014 at 4:32 am
MattN says:
“We need to see some cooling, not just non-warming, and soon.”
Unfortunately cooling is the last thing we need, although it is the more likely scenario. Our planet is always healthier when warmer, not when cooler.
==============================================================

Agreed – but were the real world to put a stake through the heart if CAGW with some real cooling, that would be a good thing in itself. Then perhaps we can start looking at adaptation to climate change rather than impossible mitigation (aka economic misery).

For those of us new to WUWT and the ongoing debates it is depressing to read here the sober and erudite contradictions of some of the more extremist alarms about AGW and then look around and see that the politicians and media are still operating with the same closed mind.
Perhaps a more focussed approach is needed.
There is in the UK , and also it seems in the US, a consensus (perhaps not 97% but close) that Hilary Clinton is the next US president . Her husband is still one of the most popular and successful of recent Presidents , partly because he was lucky in that there were fewer terrorist outrages and financial crises in his 8 years , but , to his credit , because he realised that he needed to concentrate on the aspirations of the average low – middle clas working family.
Knowing that I expect that she will be open to listening to the sceptics arguement on climate change if the Obama policies lead to a significant financial or employment loss to most US families.
She will not be able to disentangle from Obama’s ploicies until after the election because she needs the Democratic party machine , but afterwards perhaps a briefing session could be arranged with the best well known of WUWT contributers to put the case for a reduction in some of the sillier of the climate change proposals in the US and abroad.
She gives the impression of being a formidably intelligent woman and a change if not in mind , but at least in emphasis could have a global catalytic effect.

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
“It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain. The reputational risk for solar physicists in making a prediction remains too great.”

mikewaite says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:51 am
“She gives the impression of being a formidably intelligent woman …”

Make no mistake about Hillary she is an arrogant, progressive liberal. It’s just that by comparison Obama makes her look reasonable. Now Bill, having good political sense, compromised with the Republicans and moved things to the center, thus his legacy for being a good President.

Bill Clinton is only popular due to the continual promoting by the media. The media only promotes liberalism/progressivism. Conservative or limited governmental concepts are demeaned and attacked. Reagan was the only one to overcome the onslaught of attacks from the media and remained popular. The media needs to do its job, remain neutral and keep the leaders in line of both parties. No politician should ever be defended or popularized by the media. The media needs to stick to reporting the news. Climate change is another idea of the left that is being promoted by the media lap dogs to control/minipulate the public into giving more power to the government. It is all by design to grow government and change the world towards progressive ideals.

@mikewaite
You comment about the luck of the former President Clinton is quite correct but slightly misses the target. It is a very common oversight in the media and among many voters not to acknowledge the fact that the Asian financial crisis was a late stage economic cycle stimulant for the U.S. economy by prompting Fed rate cuts in sympathy with the Asian countries for coordinated policy action and a late cycle plunge in commodity costs like oil (at $20) that act like cocaine in the veins of U.S. consumers. All of that extended the expansion rather unnaturally. The earlier Clinton moves consisted of a huge tax increase that lost the majority in the House for the first time in modern history and some moderation on spending and (or) with the benefits of post-Cold War savings in the military budget.

David previously predicted a decline in average annual temperature of -2.2° C for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24 [Archibald, Solar Cycle 24: implications and expectations, 2009].

NASA says solar cycle 24 began in January 2008. According to UAH satellite temperature data for NoExt (covers 20-85° N) that region has been warming at a rate of +0.22° C/dec since Jan 2008. In the SoExt (85-20° S) the warming rate has been +0.39° C/dec since solar cycle 24 began.

That makes a net average warming of about +0.2° C for global mid-high latitudes during the first half of solar cycle 24. In order for David’s prediction to be right, we’d now need to see a decline of -2.4° C in these regions over the next 6 years (assuming a 12 year cycle).

Any predictions concerning the maximum magnitude of solar cycle 25 if the solar large scale magnetic field is say 10 microtelsa?
P.S.
The sunspots are not only disappearing large sunspots are being replaced by tiny pores.
As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline, the magnetic flux tubes no longer have sufficient strength to resist being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone. There are peculiar (unexplained) very, very, large abrupt climate changes every 8000 to 10,000 years that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The last abrupt climate change was the 8,200 year event at which time the planet cooled 2C.

William Astley says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:12 amAny comments concerning the disappearing solar large scale magnetic polar field? The polar large scale magnetic field of Solar cycle 24 is curiously stalling at or near zero. Why is that so?
That happens at every solar maximum, just look at the Figure you linked to. The reason is explained here http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

Any predictions concerning the maximum magnitude of solar cycle 25 if the solar large scale magnetic field is say 10 microtelsa?
You are not being precise. Before you used the phrase ‘the large scale magnetic polar field’. Now you dropped ‘polar’. I don’t know what you mean by the phrase ‘solar large scale magnetic field’. Assuming you mean the polar fields at minimum, then the predicted cycle size would be Rmax = 10*2*0.63 = 13, but I don’t think that the polar fields would get that low at the next minimum. We would know in about 5 years time.

As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline, the magnetic flux tubes no longer have sufficient strength to resist being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone.
The flux tubes are ALWAYS torn apart in the convection zone, then re-assemble in the photosphere to form sunspots.

There are peculiar (unexplained) very, very, large abrupt climate changes every 8000 to 10,000 years that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
There is no evidence for that. No need to recycle your standard citations for that.

And the special “Geo-Solar Cycle” sauce of proprietary recipe is in there.

By the labeling I can’t tell if you plotted “Geo-Solar” and manipulated NH temps which somehow congealed to a reproduced AMO, or if you plotted AMO and NH to get “Geo-Solar”, or AMO and “Geo-Solar” for NH!

Either way, since about 1975 “Geo-Solar” goes better with a linear or possibly exponential fit, “Geo-Solar” ain’t a cycle by that presentation.

It is interesting that the pattern of warming observed in the last 30 years (high latitude warming with almost no warming in the tropical region and there is no observed tropical troposphere 10km hot spot which is predicted and causes the tropical region warming) does not match the pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing function. Curiously the same pattern of high latitude is observed in the paleo record cyclically with correlation to solar magnetic cycle changes.http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)

JJ says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:14 amFalse. Dave’s Figure 1 does show the SIDC monthly sunspot number, as advertised.
He commits an even worse sin: for cycle 24 he uses SIDC, but for the important cycle he wants to compare with [cycle 5] he does not use the SIDC SSN, but the group sunspot number. So be careful when you make statements. I have plotted the SIDC numbers in pink http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png

Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:32 am
i>that does not seem to me to change the message much, namely using the numbers you provided, a modest change in 1 graph. What difference does it make?
David A said “Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger”

Since the comparison is flawed it is not clear what the message is. My point is that one should not mix oranges and apples. My take on this is that SC24 does not look like SC5, so any conclusion based on a similarity is moot. But perhaps, it is just D.A. rambling and no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from his [sloppy] musings.

Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:32 amthat does not seem to me to change the message much, namely using the numbers you provided, a modest change in 1 graph. What difference does it make?

David A said “Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger”

Since the comparison is flawed it is not clear what the message is. My point is that one should not mix oranges and apples. My take on this is that SC24 does not look like SC5, so any conclusion based on a similarity is moot. But perhaps, it is just D.A. rambling and no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from his [sloppy] musings in the first place.

JJM Gommers says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:55 amI noticed that DA made the remark discussing the F10.7 “that this is not subject to observer bias” so comments about fig 01 are not important
If comments about Figure are not important, then – the lead-in – Figure 1 is not important either. And BTW, the Sunspot Number is not subject to observer bias. Different observers see different things, but there are dozens of observers and their differences are understood and corrected for.

It would be easier for the average person to take David Archibald more seriously if he just came out and admitted that his previous predictions of rapid cooling during solar cycle 24 were simply wrong.

Since solar cycle 24 began, temperatures in the regions that David predicted would cool rapidly have so far warmed slightly.

How is anyone expected to take further ‘predictions’ from David Archibald seriously when it seems that previous mistaken predictions aren’t even acknowledged?

“We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers [but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:”

it is hard to undo mis information once it is spread.

REPLY: Perhaps then you and Leif should petition to prevent the group numbers from ever being published, so they they are never used in any capacity. I’ll look into getting Archibald to provide an updated graph. – Anthony

“Geo-Solar” ain’t a cycle by that presentation.
You are correct again; in this case ‘cycle’ is an abbreviation for a ‘pseudo multi-periodic signal’ resulting from my calculation.
I hope the above clarified the relevant ambiguities. Thanks again.
m.v.

“william says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:27 am
It’s whatever Leif says it is. No one here has the proper level of understanding to argue otherwise.”

Well if you have been following Leif since 2007 as I have, and if you see time after time
when know-nothings get things wrong and leif gets things right, the safe conclusion is this

1. If you are unwilling to check the data for yourself
2. If you are unwilling or unable to explain your version of solar physics
3. And you want to improve your understanding without doing the work
4. Then, chance are great that Leif is right and know-nothings are wrong and you should
trust him.

So yes, this is an appeal to authority. But its a pragmatic appeal and not an epistemic appeal.
its not right because Leif says so, But rather, if I am unwilling to do the work myself, and I want the best chance of improving my understanding, then its a pragmatically wise move to believe Leif.
Every time I have checked him, he was right. Every time. So I have a choice: Do the work myself
or trust Leif. you are free to do either. Both are rational. After a while you understand that you only advance by actually trusting another scientist.

Steven Mosher says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:42 amREPLY: Perhaps then you and Leif should petition to prevent the group numbers from ever being published, so they they are never used in any capacity.
Since the numbers are out there they will forever be used as misinformation, but the plan is to abandon the Group Sunspot Number and replace it with the Group Number, i.e. simply the average number of groups [which is around 10 so will be very different from the Sunspot Number – which will be renamed the ‘Wolf Number’].

It appears the sun is the prime driver of our climate. It is interesting to see the work of David Evans and Joanne ‘Nova’ in this respect, but also the work of Landscheidt who predicted much of this years ago.http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm

JJ says:
June 18, 2014 at 10:49 amI am quite careful when I make statements, and the statement I made was absolutely true.
I plotted the SIDC sunspot number for 1796-1826 in pink here http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png
As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement. Enough said on this.

Perhaps then you and Leif should petition to prevent the group numbers from ever being published, so they they are never used in any capacity.

That’s a more complete quote.

I agree with Steven Mosher that petitions should be person to person. That’s how the OISM Petition got 31,000+ co-signers. You know, the petition which stated that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

I have an email on file when there was a discussion here about the accuracy of sunspot count. I wrote the SIDC and they replied that this passed century and the Data up to now was 95% accurate. Before that the numbers are not so accurate. It’s possible the present minimum and the Dalton Minimum might match up if there could have been better data 200 years ago.

lsvalgaard
What’s next you anticipate? Will they be large fluctuations Ap?
Do you foresee the growth of ice in the Arctic, or not?
Is the Great Lakes will freeze in the next year or not? If so, what is the reason?

As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement.

My statement remains absolutely true. Yours remains false, and the false reasoning that you offer to rescue it is simply another example of your imprecision (that you snottily point out in others) and your willingness to bend the truth when you get caught in it.

This statement of yours:

We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers

is false. The red line in Figure 1 graphs SIDC sunspot numbers. Admit the error that you happily and condescendingly call out in others.

And this addendum:

[but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:

is odd. Comparing SIDC total monthly sunspot number to the numbers graphed on Figure 1 for SC5 shows that Dave’s numbers for SC5 are higher. Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number? Do tell.

JJ says:
June 18, 2014 at 11:40 amMy statement remains absolutely true.
As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement. D.A. claims that all data is SIDC. So much for your absolutely true statement.

Comparing SIDC total monthly sunspot number to the numbers graphed on Figure 1 for SC5 shows that Dave’s numbers for SC5 are higher. Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number?
Here you admit that D.A. plotted the Group Sunspot Number. So much for your absolutely true statement.

Do tell.
Apart from the spike in early SC5, the Group Sunspot number up to about 1880 is some 50% too low. What D.A. is trying to claim is that we are heading for a Grand Minimum and that it is going to be cold. Unfortunately, SC24 does not seem to comply.

What were you accusing him of, again?
Sloppy, tendentious ‘work’. He seems to have snowed you.

Using one kind of algorithm for SSN for one cycle but another algorithm for a comparison cycle without clearly indicated the switch has a familiar ring to it. I checked that Fig 1 closely and I don’t see any such note explaining the switch. Let me try to remember who else pulled that kind of stunt to further his speculation into a proposed theory…………………………….thinking………………………….
………………………thinking…………………..thinking……………………………thinking…………………thinking…

On the extreme right of http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png the red average is now heading down again and from a lower level than any of the previous occaisions when it was below the line. Early days yet but it could turn out interesting.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:09 pmLeif, you said that figure 1 does not show the SIDC sunspot numbers, but it DOES, doesn’t it? JJ is trying to point out to you that you were wrong to state that.
No, it doesn’t. It claims that SIDC was used, but the all-important dark-blue curve that D.A. compares with for cycle 5 and 6 is NOT the SIDC values, but the obsolete Group Sunspot Numbers. The Group Sunspot Number stops in 1996, so people are forced to use the SIDC numbers since then [there is no difference since 1996] as the Group Sunspot Number, so in that sense all the values are Group Sunspot Numbers. The important issue for D.A. was that the rapid rise in SC24 seemed to match [the Group Sunspot Numbers] for SC5 in the beginning, but that that match has broken down. One more reason not to say that SC24 is like SC5. In any case, D.A. is cherry-picking [and badly]. What JJ is seeing, beats me.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:09 pmLeif, you said that figure 1 does not show the SIDC sunspot numbers, but it DOES, doesn’t it?
It would be refreshing if D.A. would tell us where he got the data for the dark-blue curve in Figure 1 from. He says [on the Figure] that it was SIDC, but as I have shown it is not.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:25 pmAh, I see. But you can understand why a layperson would take Figure 1 to be as it says it is.
Even laypersons should be above shit like this “that you snottily point out in others” [JJ at June 18, 2014 at 11:40 am].

Since you eat a certain amount of crap every time you post here, allow me to express my gratitude at least in part compensation. I know virtually nothing about the science of the sun, but I knew about the group sunspot numbers already only because this has come up in the threads with you here at WUWT before. In other words, I only already know this because you’ve already explained it.
Also, thanks for the links to your site. I splash in the shallow end of the pool over there and learn stuff from time to time. If I was dedicated I’d probably learn more, but let’s just work with what we have.
Anyway, thank you.

Dear Ghost, I think Leif is saying that David uses the SIDC for cycle 24 (which he clearly marked as being so) but group sunspot number (which appears to be a switch not clearly indicated – actually not indicated at all) for cycle 5. Leif refers to a comparison of the two data sets (SIDC and group sunspot number) for cycle 5 and is saying David’s graph appears to be using the group sunspot number, not the SIDC for cycle 5, instead of using the same data set for both cycles.

I am interested in David A.’s explanation. If it was a mistake in the rushed effort to post, aka, what I call a speeding error (been there done that, which makes me get behinder the faster I go), then submit a corrigendum. He won’t be the first scientist to do this. The journals, from the lowly freeforall online version to the top of the heap, are filled with them.

“Even laypersons should be above shit like this “that you snottily point out in others” [JJ at June 18, 2014 at 11:40 am].”
===========
This layperson seems to be lost, what was the shit anyway ?
i.e. define “shit”.

JJ was being petulant, IE engaging in “shit”-ish behavior evidenced by JJ’s use of the word “snottily” in his dialogue with Leif. It is not uncommon when a person’s misunderstanding has been corrected to view the corrector as someone who is “snotty” or who corrected in a “snottily” fashion. Correction that is indeed a correction is a superior improvement on the misunderstanding. If one engages in petulant behavior they tend to reinterpret the correction as being “snotty” in tone, even when plainly spoken as fact.

Unfortunately I find that when correcting a person above your station, such as your boss or administrator, you place yourself at risk of being labeled a non-team player, someone who does not engage in supportive team behavior in your division. Yours truly has met that brick wall a number of times, even when I was speaking plainly and with facts.

Pamela Gray says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:10 pmUnfortunately I find that when correcting a person above your station, such as your boss or administrator, you place yourself at risk of being labeled a non-team player

Carla says:
June 18, 2014 at 6:08 pmWhen you look at the image zoomed it appears the magnetic loops around the sunspot are lying on the solar surface unable to stand up.
It has been known for many decades that the magnetic field in the penumbra surrounding the spot is mainly horizontal [i.e. ‘unable to stand up’].

Carla says:
June 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm
When you look at the image zoomed it appears the magnetic loops around the sunspot are lying on the solar surface unable to stand up.
It has been known for many decades that the magnetic field in the penumbra surrounding the spot is mainly horizontal [i.e. ‘unable to stand up’].
——————————————————————————

Yes, I know you know that. But it still looks like it can’t get up. Are the spots reaching a certain mid/high latitude and fizzles out?

Perhaps the reasons why this is, lies in the declining/declined solar magnetic field, its dipole, quadruple and octupoles, (the poles).

Accretion onto Stars with Octupole Magnetic Fields: Matter Flow, Hot Spots and
“” Phase Shifts “”
Min Longa, Marina M. Romanovab, Frederick K. Lambc,dhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5455.pdf?origin=publication_detail
Nov. 2011
Page 3
Another type of phase-shift can be connected with variation of the accretion rate,
and it operates even in cases when the magnetic field is fixed. Namely, if the
accretion rate varies, then the accretion disk interacts with different multipoles:
at low accretion rates it will interact with the dipole component, which dominates
at large distances;
at higher accretion rates, the disc will come closer to the star
and it will interact with the higher-order multipole of the complex field.
The magnetic axes of multipoles can have different tilts and phases relative to one another,
and hence the set of hot spots and the light-curves will be different at different accretion rates.
We can expect variation in both the phases and the shape of the light-curves. We use our
present stellar model with a superposition of the dipole and octupole fields to demonstrate
both of the above models of phase-shifts…….

Maybe, we can get William Astley to say Phase Shift, instead of “interruption,” to the solar cycle.

Carla says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:21 pmYes, I know you know that. But it still looks like it can’t get up. Are the spots reaching a certain mid/high latitude and fizzles out?
No, the penumbrae are and have always been nearly horizontal [‘not standing up’]

Perhaps the reasons why this is, lies in the declining/declined solar magnetic field, its dipole, quadruple and octupoles, (the poles).
No, this has nothing to do with the declining magnetic field, nor with accretion, etc. And William’s idea are overblown specualtion bordeing on nonsense [i.e. no evidence].

June 18, 2014 at 7:25 pm
—————————————————-
You did know that Ne (neon) was found in the previously known as “helium focusing cone.” (gravitationally accreted helium from interstellar space)
We might have to rename the downwind focusing cone, that lies in Earth’s orbit, the Helium and Neon focusing cone.

Ya know on the upwind side of the heliosphere, like where we are orbiting at this time of year, the noctilucent clouds seemed late this year. Could it be that the upwind “crescents” of these gravitationally focused Ne H O etc.. shift, making them appear early or late..?

vukcevic says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:34 am
No, I don’t have a number for Solar Cycle 25. I don’t have a model. Hathaway’s initial estimate of 170 for Solar Cycle 24 was trendology – if the previous cycles were strong then he thought this one would be also. Livingstone and Penn are likely to be in the ballpark. Guesses don’t count in this business.

lsvalgaard says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:49 am
People who complain about the stuff I do could displace me by doing better work. Nobody does. Perhaps I mixed up data sets. To quote one the Clintons: What difference, at this point, does it make?” She was referring to four dead Americans, I am referring to a graph that apparently needed a trigger warning. Perhaps I did it deliberately just to get certain people upset. One of life’s little pleasures is aggravating lefties. The appropriate quote from G.W.Bush is: Mission accomplished!

geoff says:
June 18, 2014 at 6:03 am
It is with some sadness that I report that I no longer use a length of 17 years for Solar Cycle 24. That was based on an observation by Altrock in April 2011 that Solar Cycle 24 was 40% slower, in green corona emissions, than the average of the previous two cycles. That means 40% longer. He recanted the following year and hasn’t published since. God knows what is going on.

DavidR says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:07 am
You raise some very good points but that is old news. It has been covered on WUWT before:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/when-will-it-start-cooling/
We are going to have to have some big cooling soon if Solar Cycle 24 isn’t going to end up as a big outlier in Friss-Christensen and Lassen analysis. If Solar Cycle 24 ends up being ultra-long then we might have time, but there may be only seven or so years left. Not much that NASA says can be believed at face value. Solar Cycle 24 started in December 2008, not January. It seems that nobody is happy with a stable climate. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have been proved wrong and mine remains in doubt, all due to a non-changing climate. But I could yet be in the ballpark, and thus have a win. David Evans’ notch filter model (a honking 20 megs in Excel) has an eleven year lag between TSI and climate. After the big proton pulse from the Sun in 2003, solar activity dropped off sharply in 2004 with the Ap Index following in 2005. Eleven years later, we are just about due for a big temperature drop off.

I have yet to be proved right re temperature but the effects I predicted are already here:http://www.farmscape.com/f2ShowScript.aspx?i=24632&q=Delayed+Spring+Planting+Raises+Concerns+Over+Potential+for+Frost+Damage+this+Fall
Late spring resulted in two million acres remaining unplanted for wheat this season in Canada. The average Canadian wheat yield last year was 1.1 tonnes/acre so the reduction will be about 10% of the Canadian wheat crop. And because what was planted could run into early frosts, the harvest has the potential for a further reduction. I have been saying for some time that Canadian agriculture will revert to trapping beavers, as they did in the 17th century. It shall come to pass.

JJM Gommers says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:55 am
Unfortunately we don’t have F10.7 flux data for the Dalton. The F10.7 flux level is currently 110. Below 100 (equating to a sunspot number of 40) is cooling and sea level falls.

J Martin says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Be aware that measurement of the Ap Index began in January 1932. So a chart that shows it back to 1844 or any other date prior to 1932 is a creation of the author of that chart. The author may have biases that influenced the construction of his chart, he may have a track record of hammering the solar record flat. But yes, the Ap Index looks pretty dead.

David A, how did you determine the cooling threshold via F10.7 flux to be 100? How do you calculate a SSN of 40 that equates to F10.7 at 100?

Leif, do you agree in principle or in fact that there is a level of solar activity that causes cooling here? Is so, what low level of solar activity do you ascribe to terrestrial cooling? What level to warming?

David A and Leif, do you agree with NOAA/NASA that SC24 has peaked or is peaking now?

I remain interested in what David E is currently saying, as long as I can agree to the mechanism he still has yet to divulge as of today. So far he has triggered both my curiousity and skepticism…

Carla says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:03 pmCould it be that the upwind “crescents” of these gravitationally focused Ne H O etc.. shift, making them appear early or late..?
No, what the heliosphere does have no bearing on anything like that.

David Archibald says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:24 pmPerhaps I did it deliberately just to get certain people upset.
What a shameless, small-minded little nasty creature you are.

David Archibald says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:20 pmBe aware that measurement of the Ap Index began in January 1932. So a chart that shows it back to 1844 or any other date prior to 1932 is a creation of the author of that chart.
Created from the same kind of data that goes into Ap and therefore just as valid. It all depends on the data and not on the person. Here you can learn how to construct Ap: http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf

Bob Weber says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:36 pmLeif, do you agree in principle or in fact that there is a level of solar activity that causes cooling here? Is so, what low level of solar activity do you ascribe to terrestrial cooling? What level to warming?
The Sun always causes warming. The Earth looses heat to space by radiation. Over time there is a balance between warming and cooling. One has to do the calculation right and not just the simplistic magical ‘level’-business

that SC24 has peaked or is peaking now?
Weak cycles have many peaks. How many you see, depends on what smoothing you perform. The Sun does not know which one.

David, I have seen some of your more recent reports showing the green corona data that indicates solar cycle 24 will be much longer than average, I am somewhat confused by your statement that you are no longer sure about the longer than average length for the cycle, why is it you still show the green corona data when your statement in this article shows your newest thinking, that the cycle “might” be longer than cycle 23?

So yes, this is an appeal to authority. But its a pragmatic appeal and not an epistemic appeal.
its not right because Leif says so, But rather, if I am unwilling to do the work myself, and I want the best chance of improving my understanding, then its a pragmatically wise move to believe Leif.
Every time I have checked him, he was right. Every time. So I have a choice: Do the work myself
or trust Leif. you are free to do either. Both are rational. After a while you understand that you only advance by actually trusting another scientist.
***

The puzzle I have is the apparent “step change” into negative in mid 2000s. it could of course just be an artifact. Also are the cooler SSTs contributing to the increase in southern hemisphere sea ice?

I asked you how you determined an F10.7 flux of 100 to be the threshold for cooling. That was a softball question that you ought to be able to hit out of the park. Care to step up to the plate again and hit a homer? Explain in detail please without reference to sea level. Do you agree with NOAA/NASA that SC24 has peaked?

lsvalgaard says:
June 18, 2014 at 10:27 pm

You said, “Over time there is a balance between warming and cooling. One has to do the calculation right…”

Do you know how much time it takes under what conditions to arrive at the balance point between warming and cooling? Do you know how to “do the calculation right”? and if so, how do you do it? if you don’t know how specifically, who does in your humble opinion?

As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement.

There is no pink curve on Figure 1. There is a red curve. The red curve can be verified to be SIDC monthly sunspot data. It necessarily follows that SIDC sunspot data are shown on Figure 1. This contrasts with Leif S’s statement:

“We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers …”.

Leif’s statement is therefore necessarily false. Leif should own up to his false statement, especially after making snotty pedantic comments against poster William Astley (Leif S – June 18, 2014 at 7:47 am). But apparently, snotty Leif feels the privilege to look down his nose at others and admonish them for posting “imprecisely”, while unapologetically playing fast and loose with words himself. Leif is a snotty hypocrite.

“Comparing SIDC total monthly sunspot number to the numbers graphed on Figure 1 for SC5 shows that Dave’s numbers for SC5 are higher. Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number?”

Here you admit that D.A. plotted the Group Sunspot Number.

Uh, no. There I state that what you claim to be Group Sunspot Number on Figure 1 is demonstrably higher than the SIDC Total Sunspot Number for SC 5. This leads to the question: Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number?” BTW, your snotty use of “admit” would have been inappropriate, even if I had said what you falsely claimed I had. As I have never said that D.A. didn’t plot GSN, there would have been nothing to “admit”.

Apart from the spike in early SC5, the Group Sunspot number up to about 1880 is some 50% too low.

Which does not answer the question – Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number? Well, is it? If so, for what periods?

Apart from the spike in early SC5, the Group Sunspot number up to about 1880 is some 50% too low. What D.A. is trying to claim is that we are heading for a Grand Minimum and that it is going to be cold. Unfortunately, SC24 does not seem to comply.

Comparison of SDIC Monthly Total Sunspot for SC5 vs SC24 shows that SC5 is lower. So, you are accusing Dave of trying to cover up the fact that SC5 is lower, by substituting another dataset for SC5 that is … 50% too low. That’s … special.

Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 6:42 amDo you know how much time it takes under what conditions to arrive at the balance point between warming and cooling? Do you know how to “do the calculation right”? and if so, how do you do it? if you don’t know how specifically, who does in your humble opinion?
Here is a good introduction:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

JJ says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:15 amThere is no pink curve on Figure 1. There is a red curve.
I plotted the SIDC sunspot number for 1796-1826 in pink here http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png
As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement. Enough said on this.

As I have never said that D.A. didn’t plot GSN
You said he plotted the SIDC numbers…
For the rest of your comment: not worth laboring on.

Leif is correct. You will see this if you use his link, which you appear unable to do. There the curve is pink and is distinct from the blue curve.

It is true that Leif shows little patience with those such as you who are obstinately obtuse, but so much for the better, as it keeps the thread interesting. To avoid further bruises, best drop your petulance. Also, you might work on your reading comprehension skills. And your manners.

Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.”

“Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. ” – so then, the science isn’t settled after all….!?!?!?!?

I disregard all commentary as vacuous on Earth’s temperature sensitivity to “greenhouse gases” because temps in fact don’t follow CO2 increases. Proof: since 1998, delta T = zero, while CO2 has risen. End of story. Trenberth’s Energy Budget is like the US government’s fiscal budgets – out of balance – and officialdom doesn’t want to listen to those who see it’s out of balance.

Back to our energy source… David Archibald claims there is an F10.7 flux “level” of 100 that is the fine line between warming and cooling. Is he wrong? if so, why? I’m waiting on him to explain why he is right. I’m waiting on you to explain in your own words why he is either right or wrong.

Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:25 amI disregard all commentary
Wrong attitude. You have to actually do the calculation in order to disagree.
You ‘proof’ just shows that there are other forcings at work that need to be taken into account.

Back to our energy source… David Archibald claims there is an F10.7 flux “level” of 100 that is the fine line between warming and cooling. Is he wrong? if so, why? I’m waiting on him to explain why he is right. I’m waiting on you to explain in your own words why he is either right or wrong.
He is much too simplistic [i.e. ‘not even wrong’]. BTW, F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??

Variations on different time scales are evident in the final low-noise cosmic radiation (radionuclide production) record (Fig. 3 B, C, and D). A comparison with changes in the geomagnetic dipole field strength (21) (Fig. 3A) shows that the geomagnetic dipole shielding is the main cause of the observed multimillennial variability; the stronger the geomagnetic field, the lower is the cosmic radiation. On multidecadal to centennial time scales the cosmic radiation variations are mostly due to solar modulation (Fig. 3 C and D) as indicated by the coincidence of cosmic radiation maxima and grand solar (sunspot) minima like the Maunder minimum (Fig. 3D).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/#B21

Leif – credit to you for answering. Maybe David A is too aloof to answer on his own post.

“…there are other forcings at work that need to be taken into account.”

MY POINT EXACTLY (I’m getting to it.)

Given the choices: a positive GHG sensitivity, a zero sensitivity, or a negative sensitivity – and given the major forcings we know for sure have the ability to increase temperatures, ie, ocean heat content and solar variability, we have a range of scenarios that are possible.

A. For instance, if GHG sensitivity is positive, it is mathematically possible, and this is what the warmists do, for an increase in temps, to neglect or minimize all other forcings such as ocean heat and solar variability, and assume GHG are the sole or main cause of the whopping few tenths of a degree increase over 30 some years that we’re all supposed to be freaked out over.

B. It is also mathematically possible to describe a zero sensitivity to GHG, whereby only ocean heat content and solar variability matter to temperature. Then we’re left to wonder where the oceans got the heat in the first place (duh), and how does solar variability accomplish that.

C. Then the last choice of a neg GHG sensitivity would mean a larger than scenario B ocean heat content and/or solar variation influence is needed to show the observed overall temp increase.

Considering the temps have been flat for almost 18 years, using IPCC-speak, it is very LIKELY that scenario A is completely out of the question. Are you agreed on that?

You asked, “..F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??” Good question. Maybe we are, and maybe David A is right!

Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 10:21 amConsidering the temps have been flat for almost 18 years, using IPCC-speak, it is very LIKELY that scenario A is completely out of the question. Are you agreed on that?
No, without doing a detailed calculation we cannot say. The other forcings will have to be understood and quantified and I don’t think we are there yet.

You asked, “..F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??” Good question. Maybe we are, and maybe David A is right!
D.A. has always advocated cooling and impending ice age.

David and JJ. If the two of you were riding in the backseat of my car, I would be whacking you with my fly swatter. Such immature petulance should be further away from scientific discourse as the Earth is to the next galaxy. You do your solar and climate speculations and responses to plainly stated corrections no amount of good.

David, you have been asked by me to provide a corrigendum wrt your poorly labeled fig 1. I have included what that means below in case you are not aware of this word. If you fail in this I have to ask, what else have you been so sloppy with?

cor·ri·gen·dum (kôriˈjendəm)
noun: corrigendum; plural noun: corrigenda
1. a thing to be corrected, typically an error in a printed book.

“No, without doing a detailed calculation we cannot say. The other forcings will have to be understood and quantified and I don’t think we are there yet.”

Ice core data clearly indicate CO2 increases follow temperature increases historically, indicating causality runs opposite to the IPCC warmists’ conjectures. Unless someone wants to declare a change in physics happened in the modern era in atmospheric physics, it is incumbent we understand CO2 increases come from not just fossil fuel use, but from the release of it along with heat from warmer oceans. The oceans didn’t warm up all by themselves. Where did the heat in the oceans come from originally? The Sun turned up the heat during the Modern Maximum peak.

I think we have not yet seen low enough solar activity long enough for a clearly incontrovertible negative cooling trend (from today’s temperatures), which I think will come later in SC24 and further on, a negative trend that will last until solar activity reaches higher levels, who knows when. David A gave a solar activity “level” at F10.7 =100, my only questions of him are how and why?

Steven Mosher says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:51 am
… After a while you understand that you only advance by actually trusting another scientist.

One of the themes running throughout the climate debate has been a tacit demand by folks like Jones and Mann to trust them. The withholding of data, methods, and code is nothing but a demand to trust the “expert.” It is pretty clear that many of the team feel that they are being denied status they “deserve.” The irony is that their own behaviour engenders the very mistrust they resent.

A poorly articulated aspect of the scientific ethos is the necessity to make it possible for other scientists to trust your work. The most important criterion by which we measure the trustworthiness of another scientist is how open they are with their data, methods, and critical details that lead to results they considered important enough to publish.

Leif, your version of fig 1 is very enlightening and would bring to a reasonable person’s mind a pause when comparing cycle 5 with cycle 24. Why? While I would not compare one cycle to another (I would rather base my decision on mechanics, not cyclomania) it does, in this case, become an instructive method in that it clearly casts doubt on using cycle comparisons, without at least listing the caveats of choosing that method, to understand anything at all about the current cycle.

… Perhaps I did it deliberately just to get certain people upset. One of life’s little pleasures is aggravating lefties…

This indicates that Leif was quite right, and further that, far from being informative, the essay is malicious and lacks any substance that other readers would find useful or informative. Is that your real intent? It is clear you and Leif don’t share much in common, but you are implying that you took a page out of Michael Mann’s book in composing that graph. Further, you imply that the enjoyment you would get out of irritating Leif makes the collateral damage you do to the rest of readers worthwhile. Seriously?

Duster, to leave a graph poorly labeled is one of “their” tricks. Let us hope we do not do the same. Or else we cannot trust the other side of the debate either.

I quite agree. The entire point is that while Mosher is correct that we need to “trust” at some point, science does offer ethical and methodological procedures that provide guidance for both earning and evaluating [scientific] trustworthiness. A major handicap of “climate science” is the tendency for meany practitioners to to reject those guidelines and a consequent subsidence into childishness as an alternative.

Bob, you need to add Leif’s Modern Maximum change into the “delta-t” calculation in order to determine what amount of temperature change would occur in the global average beyond its already known solar cycle oscillation. You will find that based purely on mathematics, the change attributed to the solar variability Leif referred to is a smaller fraction of the overall change during the warming period we are discussing in other threads. My recollection is that it is smaller than the change attributed to CO2. That is not to say that the standard set of calculations fully translates ENSO processes. So with that caveat, there was a recent paper done that attributes the various components of the rise to various processes. Again, that is not to say I agree with the in-situ translation of the mathematics involved, but it is a starting point to further refine our understanding and I appreciate the thoroughness of that paper.

Pamela I am not working the CO2 angle – it’s not workable, others have proved it’s not workable, and as I said before, why go there? My findings are based solely on solar variability. The Modern Solar Maximum is responsible for the entire warming we have experienced since the 1970s (the period people are so worked up about).

Someone somewhere decided the Sun doesn’t vary enough to cause temperature changes like we’ve seen – I don’t agree with that whatsoever. The energy budget cited in the Earth Observatory article in previous comments is based on “CO2 science” and as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t work because the “CO2 warming” theory doesn’t work. All skeptics agree the CO2 paradigm is deeply flawed, so why are we supposed to then use the CO2-based energy budget to work out whether the Sun varies enough to raise or lower temperatures? Scrap that “budget” – it’s junk.

If David A isn’t going to pick it up on 10.7 flux, I will, in due time. I’ve spent a lifetime figuring out things and this was no different – it’s not that hard.

Doubts? How did the USA have the most number of hot temp records at the highest readings in the 1930s, long before the CO2 concentration went up in more recent times? Why haven’t we returned to those high temps and stayed there or gone even higher? That should cause rational people to wonder out loud “why isn’t it hotter now than it was in the 1930’s when CO2 was less?”

Per your aside, in Jan 2012 I was working out in the deep hard maple forest in Northern Michigan and saw a large herd of mature elk come into the property next to my worksite. Incredible how large and beautiful those animals are!

Pamela Gray says
June 19, 2014, 2:01
As an aside, I intend on turning up the heat on buck deer this fall. I drew my 3rd buck tag in as many years for controlled hunt season in the same VERY productive area. Look out Bambi. Here I come.
—-
I still have two venison loin roasts from last year in the freezer. (gifts in return for my cooking them dinner). My fav is it pan seared with a black current reduction, sides of celeriac/onion/garlic/white turnip/potato puree and sauteed haricot vert with a fine Barolo or two. Bliss.

Bob, your arguments do not conform to scientific standards. You state a belief, not a hypothesis which you then try to disprove (that is the way it is done). You not only do not have a plausible solar mechanism, you fail in additional areas:
1. to discount the affect CO2 has on LWIR on air directly above land surfaces. The physics of that molecule clearly demonstrates the ability to re-radiate LWIR in all directions, thus warming the air over land surfaces beyond water vapor’s major role. Are you in disagreement with that property of CO2? Granted, it has a limit to how much re-radiated LWIR it can absorb and it probably interacts differently over water surfaces. And the upper tropospheric hotspot and increased atmospheric water vapor it is supposed to trigger have failed to materialize.
2. to discount the known VARIABLE short and long term lag that is part and parcel to ocean heat absorption and its rate of discharge.
3. to discount the null hypothesis, which is natural intrinsic variation, as the primary source of temperature trends.

Please note: I am not adhering to the hypothesis that increased anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the lion’s share of anomalous warming since the 70’s. However, all CO2 isotopes share this: they are perfectly able to absorb and re-emit LWIR. That is a fact.

So stop stating beliefs. Respond with your thesis based on at least introductory facts and known properties of what is at the end of your nose before flying off into space looking for another cause.

Bob Weber says: June 19, 2014 at 2:56 pm
… How did the USA have the most number of hot temp records at the highest readings in the 1930s…
One of the contributors to the natural temperature variability went haywire in 1920s, ocean currents responded in an unhurried but appropriate manner
as they always did and do.

Sean, gonna BBQ mine sans anything but salt and pepper. Might saute onions and mushrooms to make a wilted spinach salad if I can catch some of the venison drippings and I think there is left over stuffed potato salad in the frig. Plain old beer to wash it all down.

Pamela can you tell me where I stated a belief? For one thing, I haven’t said all there is to say about this here at WUWT or anywhere else. What is the problem with my stating examples where the warmists’ arguments regarding CO2 do not explain various events and or conditions here? That part is a critique, not a belief.

Why is it OK for you to say “Please note: I am not adhering to the hypothesis that increased anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the lion’s share of anomalous warming since the 70′s.” but it’s not OK for me to say that or something close to that? Is your use of the phrase “loin’s share” part of the scientific standards you speak of? What does that mean?

This conversation today was pretty short, didn’t include much, and I am still waiting patiently for David Archibald to come back and say more on his post. Today was not the day you were going to hear everything from me. I hope you’re not expecting me to go along with CO2 groupthink. The CO2 people think they have scientific standards on their side. Do you agree with them? Do you agree that there are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed science papers that meet scientific standards whereafter reality demonstrates that the papers authors were ultimately wrong?

You can criticize me for not explaining enough to you, just like my criticism of David A for so far not explaining himself better. Maybe he’ll be right back with that explanation – I’m patient. .

You appeared to me to fly off the handle a bit – still many notchs below petulant – THAT is my belief! So, calm down, and realize you haven’t really heard much of anything from me yet, and as such, please reserve judgment until you do, OK?

Bob Weber says: June 19, 2014 at 2:56 pm
“Pamela I am not working the CO2 angle – it’s not workable, others have proved it’s not workable, and as I said before, why go there? My findings are based solely on solar variability. The Modern Solar Maximum is responsible for the entire warming we have experienced since the 1970s (the period people are so worked up about).”

The above comment by you is stated as a belief. Because you have no plausible mechanism, you have no choice but to state your speculation as a rather strongly held position. Which to me, and I am guessing to most here, is a belief. You are looking for what you believe to be true in your mind. That is not part of the scientific method. Any climate investigator worth a damn should still be focused on intrinsic factors first. They are not well understood nor properly modeled. You appear to jump over them a leap too far which turns your hypothesis into a belief.

You probably have this on your computer but in case you don’t, here are links to well thought out articles on solar influences on climate. Granted, some parts of the first paper may need to be understood with the caveat related to the current work on sunspot number indices.

The second paper undergirds my contention that the null hypothesis, IE internal variability, is at work driving temperature trends up and down throughout the historical temperature record extended back two centuries. I will try to find the third paper of interest to this topic related to attribution to solar variability.

For the life of me, I can’t find that article (woman author?) which was a landmark calculation on the strength of each separate factor involved in a warming trend. Leif first brought my attention to it. Maybe he can put the link to it in this thread if he knows which one I am talking about.

By the way, regarding that second paper I linked to, I consider Bob Tisdale’s work as key to understanding the one area the authors did not consider in terms of the warming trend of the past 50 years: the ENSO step function. It alone may make up the remainder of the warming trend attribution (intrinsic factors were tagged at 40% of the warming trend by the authors), ridding the remaining 60% of its assumed anthropogenic CO2 driver, or at least squeezing it into a corner. Of the two, the ENSO step function speculation, and the addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere, back of the envelope calculations would indicate that ENSO processes are the stronger of the two in terms of having sufficient energy to drive warming.

Your statements here are your unfounded beliefs: “Because you have no plausible mechanism, you have no choice but to state your speculation as a rather strongly held position. Which to me, and I am guessing to most here, is a belief. You are looking for what you believe to be true in your mind.” and “You appear to jump over them a leap too far which turns your hypothesis into a belief.”

You have done nothing but assume. I’ve forgive you. You’re obviously not a mind reader.

From your second link abstract opening: “The observed global-warming rate has been nonuniform, and the cause of each episode of slowing in the expected warming rate is the subject of intense debate. …. [last abstract statement] Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.”

What accounts for the other 60%, provided the 40% attribution to IE is accurate? Where does the ocean get the heat that gets released into the atmosphere? The Sun! What constantly replenishes the ocean with heat as it continually releases heat into the atmosphere? The Sun! What happened to ocean and air temperatures during the periods of history when solar activity was low? How did they get colder from IE then get warmer again if the Sun’s heat supposedly varies so little? Why are the warmists looking for the “missing heat” at the bottom of the ocean?

The first paper by Gray et al: related are you? I guess another copy of that one in my hard drive won’t hurt – in addition to the other fifty or so solar climate papers. Lockwood’s name is on that – are you sure Leif would approve?

Pamela I realize you’re trying to be helpful. Appreciate the thought. Happy hunting.

Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Look at the graph I referred you to. Above a sunspot number of 40, sealevel rises. Below 40, it falls. Simple as can be. If you can understand that, we can go on to the next step which is converting that sunspot number to F10.7 flux, which is 100. I will now refer you to a reivew of my book:http://takimag.com/article/a_fate_of_ice_and_fire_john_derbyshire#axzz356JdHGPO

By the way, the average sunspot number over the last 8,000 years was 30. So climate and sealevel equilibrated on that level of activity. The Sun has been more active for the last 150 years so the climate and sealevel has equilibrated on a sunspot number of 40.

Regarding Bob Tisdale: one wonders how he can hold a job and still crank out so many great jam-packed posts! I’ve certainly learned from Mr. Tisdale’s works. My short answer to the title of his book “Who Turned Up the Heat?” is …. the SUN!

Bob, if you google Pamela Gray you will find 10’s of thousands of people who share my name. Even my middle name. Gray is my married name though I am no longer married. So no relation. However I have done lab research and have published.

Appreciate the response. Time will tell who’s right about sea-level and solar activity. How did you determine the average SSN to be 30 over the past 8,000 years? Just to help you avoid the troubles earlier alluded to on this post, is the SSN you refer to during the last 150 years the new-fangled number or old-fangled number? Does the current SSN reconstruction efforts led by Leif change in any way your calculations or conclusions?

Bob, I don’t think Leif will mind if Lockwood is on the list. Lockwood’s recent papers are in agreement with Leif regarding calibration problems with the Zurich sunspot number. “We analyse the widely-used international/ Zürich sunspot number record, R, with a view to quantifying a suspected calibration discontinuity around 1945 (which has been termed the “Waldmeier discontinuity” [Svalgaard, 2011])…and that R is indeed too low before 1945.”

So this is what’s been happening on the solar threads. Long arguments that the Earth is warming, due to tiny solar output variations that are incapable of overriding the mechanisms of Willis Eschenbach’s Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis, among others.

So how much longer will these solar enthusiasts be treating the Earth like a block of aluminum on a digitally-controlled hot plate? Feed in another tenth of a watt, then calculate how much the temperature of the monolithic homogeneous planet MUST rise?

AS if the idea that the Earth cools to space is somehow an idea that one man owns – is ludicrous.

Such a quick reply, showing how little consideration you gave to my words.

If the solar output is increased leading to more solar energy being absorbed on the surface, then the tropical thunderstorms happen earlier in the day, the excess heat is still dumped to space. Little solar additions mean earlier storms, that’s it.

What might make a difference is if the solar output dropped so low the thunderstorms were no longer triggered, which would result in greater heat retention as the thunderstorm mechanism naturally overshoots, thus there would be a natural floor where temperatures are maintained with occasional thunderstorms. It would take quite a sustained drop to make a noticeable difference as the system drifted cooler, over many decades as perhaps happened with the Spörer Minimum.

The solar variations debated here, are too minuscule for too short a time frame to matter.

Sometimes I think the posters on this board would think Attila the Hun was a liberal. Dwight D Eisenhower and Richard Nixon would be left wingers today. It amazes me how far right this country has come since I was a boy in the fifties and nobody who is younger than forty seems to understand that at all. A liberal media? What a joke! Fox News vs. Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid. Like comparing Venus and Mars.

Right wing? There was no Obamacare in the 50s. The biggest liberal of the age, JFK, also enacted the second biggest tax cut in history. There were no seat belt laws (you may or may not agree with them, however they are not right wing). Welfare? See you local church. Food stamps? S&H Green only.

Good for you. Nothing I have said makes any reference to any figure that you have plotted. I reference Figure 1 above. Contrary to your claims, Figure 1 above presents SIDC data (hint: it’s the red curve).

As I have never said that D.A. didn’t plot GSN

You said he plotted the SIDC numbers…

And he did plot SIDC numbers. See Figure 1 above. Conversely, I have never said that DA did not plot GSN. Yet you claim I have. You don’t listen any more precisely than you speak, and your reasoning is less precise still. A person such as yourself who exhibits such sloppy discourse ought not snottily condescend to others for speaking imprecisely (as you did above to William Astley) or accuse people of “bending the truth” for a simple error (as you did to David). But you do these things. Snotty Leif is a hypocrite.

For the rest of your comment: not worth laboring on.

Snotty Leif runs from his imprecise snottiness and his hypocrisy, but does not change it.

BTW, you still have not answered my question, posed three times above – Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number? Well is it? If so, for what periods?

Pamela Gray says:
June 19, 2014 at 5:24 pmFor the life of me, I can’t find that article (woman author?) which was a landmark calculation on the strength of each separate factor involved in a warming trend. Leif first brought my attention to it. Maybe he can put the link to it in this thread if he knows which one I am talking about.
Judith Lean http://www.leif.org/EOS/LeanRindCauses.pdf andhttp://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038932.pdf

Pamela Gray says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:03 pmBob, I don’t think Leif will mind if Lockwood is on the list. Lockwood’s recent papers are in agreement with Leif regarding calibration problems with the Zurich sunspot number. “We analyse the widely-used international/ Zürich sunspot number record, R, with a view to quantifying a suspected calibration discontinuity around 1945 (which has been termed the “Waldmeier discontinuity” [Svalgaard, 2011])…and that R is indeed too low before 1945.”
Lockwood et al. have a history of trying to play catch-up. They eventually get it right. In this particular case, their suggested factor is too small. The best estimate we get simply by asking the observers to count with and without weighting. Heere is what we get:http://www.leif.org/research/Weighting-of-Sunspot-Counts.pdf

JJ says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:49 pmGood for you. Nothing I have said makes any reference to any figure that you have plotted. I reference Figure 1 above. Contrary to your claims, Figure 1 above presents SIDC data (hint: it’s the red curve).
D.A. claims that the data [to me that means all of it] is SIDC data, and the important blue curve that he compares with is not SIDC. As simple as that. And that makes any comparison meaningless.

BTW, you still have not answered my question, posed three times above – Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number? Well is it? If so, for what periods?
This is an imprecise and misleading question. The Group Sunspot Number is meant to be the Total, True Sunspot Number, by definition. After about 1885 the official [SIDC] sunspot number and the group sunspot number agree pretty well [as they were made to do by careful calibration]. Before ~1885 the Group Sunspot Number is seriously too low [by some 50%] due to a flaw in its construction. Very early on [such as during cycle 5] the Group Sunspot Number is very noisy and does have a spike or two larger than SIDC, but this is not a signal, just noise.

Hoyt and Schatten are in their own class, about 4.5 W/m^2 higher than Lean, Solanki and Fligge, and Lockwood and Stamper who group similarly in the 20th century. Lean is longer than H&S, which is 2nd longest, but the bumps do not align.

There is also another line presented without a proper scale, purportedly the H&S GSN. It succeeds in showing the H&S GSN has little to do with the H&S TSI reconstruction except often simultaneously wiggling through the sunspot cycle.

…..I consider Bob Tisdale’s work as key to understanding the one area .. in terms of the warming trend of the past 50 years: the ENSO step function.
……………………………………………………………………….
Ms. Gray, you jump WAAAAYYY over mechanism. ENSOetc
step up in one = step down in the other, and vice versa.
high threshold = cooler water forced to the surface = cooling
low threshold = Pacific is at peace = solar warming

JJ says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:49 pm
“A person such as yourself who exhibits such sloppy discourse ought not snottily condescend to others for speaking imprecisely (as you did above to William Astley) or accuse people of “bending the truth” for a simple error (as you did to David). But you do these things. Snotty Leif is a hypocrite.” and “Snotty Leif runs from his imprecise snottiness and his hypocrisy, but does not change it.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
JJ could you please direct me to your page of published research so that I may compare that to Leif’s (http://www.leif.org/research) in order for me to make an informed decision as to whom I shall give more credence.

JJ could you please direct me to your page of published research so that I may compare that to Leif’s (http://www.leif.org/research) in order for me to make an informed decision as to whom I shall give more credence.

Please, climate skeptics have been battered with “If that was true it’d be published”, “Where are your peer-reviewed publications?” and all those related issues combating an entrenched “consensus” view for far too many years to insist on published research.

At least a coherent presentation with references and code and data available with methodology specified as needed, that can be asked for, as that is what we ask among ourselves.

Besides, we’ve all seen how being published is no guarantee what was published is not onzin.

How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences

Like all the best hoaxes, there was a serious point to be made. Three MIT graduate students wanted to expose how dodgy scientific conferences pestered researchers for papers, and accepted any old rubbish sent in, knowing that academics would stump up the hefty, till-ringing registration fees.

It took only a handful of days. The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.

But this is the hoax that keeps on giving. The creators of the automatic nonsense generator, Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, have made the SCIgen program free to download. And scientists have been using it in their droves. This week, Nature reported, French researcher Cyril Labbé revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both organisations have now taken steps to remove the papers.
…

Then enjoy yourself on that site of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” where you may freely and continually discuss Iron Sun, Sky Dragon Slaying, the riding of pseudocycles even in Central England, and whatever else you desire.

Anthony thanks for posting that. I appreciate it. All I ever wanted was a fair playing field. I sincerely did not think that was the case. Reason being many of the post I wrote were had were not put on only selective ones. Perhaps I could have also approach this in a different manner from my end.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 20, 2014 at 8:38 am
re:
Tom in Florida on June 20, 2014 at 5:42 am:
” JJ could you please direct me to your page of published research so that I may compare that to Leif’s (http://www.leif.org/research) in order for me to make an informed decision as to whom I shall give more credence.”

Please, climate skeptics have been battered with “If that was true it’d be published”, “Where are your peer-reviewed publications?” and all those related issues combating an entrenched “consensus” view for far too many years to insist on published research.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Sorry that you missed the sarcasm. I had quoted JJ’s vicious attack on Leif. As you know Leif not only provides excellent information about the Sun but also valuable insight into the processes he is actively involved in. It was a non confrontational way of trying to get JJ to realize who he was defaming.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:15 pm
“Huh, just had a brain tickle. If someone defames Leif then apologizes, have they refamed him? Wouldn’t Leif first have to have fame before he could be defamed?”
———————————————————————————————————————-
Cute. But just in case someone doesn’t get it, defamation has nothing to do with fame itself.

However, I think Leif is well known enough in his field to say he has fame.
Then there is also this:
“In the sixties Svalgaard and Mansurov discovered that the shape of diurnal variations of a magnetic field in high latitudes depend on the sign of IMF sector structure. Later this dependence was named as Svalgaard-Mansurov effect. We use the technique based on the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect for the sector structure sign definition.”

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 20, 2014 at 1:30 pmHis career already spans four and a half sunspot cycles!
As my [old!] colleague Ken Schatten once remarked “solar physics is so difficult, that it takes a lifetime to master” :-)

..I would estimate that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of 7 for SC25 is far too low, and would go for a symbolic SSN=25 for the SC25.
———————————————————-
Unofficially, that’s pretty good Vuks.

Has anyone yet asked Dr. S., if he sees enough magnetic flux on the sun, to make the L&P estimate of 7 a reality, for solar cycle 25? You know more or less.
No way is this an exact science yet, the prediction of solar cycle amplitude.
Which multipole, of the solar multipoles, and at which latitude seem ahhh.. damped.

Maybe we should be looking at MRI magnetorotational instability, along side the accretion models, because both can be occurring simultaneously. Both meaning MRI and accretion.

Could be a slow down in the polar rotation, for some unknown reason. (huh) Which will affect where accretion to a solar disk or extended corona occurs.

MRI-driven Accretion onto Magnetized stars: Axisymmetric
MHD Simulations
M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova,2y, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1;3
Feb, 2011http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1089v1.pdf
ABSTRACT
We present the first results of a global axisymmetric simulation of accretion onto rotating
magnetized stars from a turbulent accretion disk, where the turbulence is driven
by the magnetorotational instability (MRI). Long-lasting accretion is observed for several
thousand rotation periods of the inner part of the disc. The angular momentum
is transported outward by the magnetic stress of the turbulent flow with a rate corresponding
to a Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity paramete.
Close to the star
the disk is stopped by the magnetic pressure of the magnetosphere. The subsequent
evolution depends on the orientation of the poloidal field in the disk relative to that of
the star at the disk-magnetosphere boundary. If fields have the same polarity, then the
magnetic flux is accumulated at the boundary and blocks the accretion which leads
to the accumulation of matter at the boundary. Subsequently, this matter accretes to
the star in outburst before accumulating again. Hence, the cycling, ‘bursty’ accretion
is observed.
The magnetic stress is enhanced at the boundary, leading to the enhanced
accretion rate. If the disc and stellar fields have opposite polarity, then the field reconnection
enhances the penetration of the disk matter towards the deeper field lines
of the magnetosphere….

And get the kryptonite out.
Had to re-read
Dr. J. Linksy’s press release,
“Cloud Tripping Through the Milky Way.”
07-13-2009http://jila.colorado.edu/news-highlights/cloud-tripping-through-milky-way
“”We’re now on a collision course with the G cloud, which stands between us and the galactic center. Linsky says we’ll enter the G cloud in less than 5,000 years — perhaps even tomorrow. Once that happens, there’s a chance the G cloud will affect the Sun’s solar wind and Earth’s climate.

For instance, a dense enough cloud could push in on the solar wind and pollute the interplanetary medium, decreasing the Sun’s intensity and cooling the Earth. A very dense cloud could even produce an ice age on the Earth. Luckily, the G cloud isn’t dense enough to cause an ice age. It would only cool the earth a little relative to the environment we’re in now.””

In the article Dr. Linsky refers to the resizing of the heliosphere in the event of density changes to our local interstellar environment close to the sun. Of course there would be an increase to the accretion/reconnection rate of the sun, through its own gravitational focusing and charge exchange with neutrals.
Damping of multipole fields occurs through this accretion/ reconnection phase shift…
oops there goes the solar cycle..

I would like to bring to attention ‘when’,
we might have entered an overlap of interstellar cloud background.
The solar polar field began its, “steady” decline in magnetic field strength in, solar cycle 21. I did say “steady.” It had a steep and abrupt decline in cycle 20. As seen in Leifs, polar fields graph.

So, maybe instead of Dr. Linsky saying, “we’ll enter the G cloud in less than 5,000 years — perhaps even tomorrow.”

He should have said, we have been entering since solar cycle 21. Solar cycle 21, is that about the time they first discovered that the inflowing interstellar wind is coming from the constellation Ophiuchus?

There was an announcement about Ophiuchus in 2004, but they had lots of info before that press release. Good intro to helium focusing cone for any interested in the accretion to the entire planetary system. By the time of the announcement below the solar polar fields where well on the way down, down, down… I can feel their excitement..

…One day the solar system might run into something more massive. There are clouds in the galaxy thousands of times denser than the Local Interstellar Cloud. University of Chicago astronomer Priscilla Frisch has studied what might happen if we plowed into one of those. Writing in the magazine American Scientist she reports, “a cloud with 1,000 atoms per cubic centimeter could compress the sun’s magnetic field to within a few AU of the sun. (1 AU or “one astronomical unit” is the distance between the sun and Earth). Planets such as Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto would be fully exposed to interstellar atoms and molecules. Interstellar gas would overwhelm the solar wind at 1 AU,” transforming the space-environment of our planet.

The first signs of such a transformation could be the helium breeze thickening or shifting directions, heralding something new to come.

ACE has already detected changes. “We see strange gusts, ebbs and flows,” says Gloeckler. “We doubt these variations are interstellar.” Instead, the sun is probably responsible. The helium breeze must blow through the much denser solar wind, which can push the breeze around. Sunspots also affect the breeze. Ultraviolet radiation shining from sunspots ionizes the breeze and changes the way it appears to instruments like SWICS….

Magnetic field close to the sun damping. (lower amplitude magnetic field,buried)
Continuing over a lengthy period say 40 plus years, will add a rotational effect.
Less spots.
Dr. S. knows what we have for available flux and probably knows exactly where it is on the disk.. lol

At the time of the writing of the Dr. J. Linsky article, the solar fields where already at the FLOOR, he would have seen the “steady,” decline over the period from solar cycle 21 to solar cycle 24. Instead he says maybe tomorrow when really it was prolly cycle 20.

A few cloud overlaps in the interstellar background. Have the overlaps been increasing over our modern records period ..?

Carla says:
June 20, 2014 at 5:13 pmMagnetic field close to the sun damping. (lower amplitude magnetic field,buried)
Continuing over a lengthy period say 40 plus years, will add a rotational effect.
Carla, this trip of yours is pure nonsense. What happens with the heliosphere past the point where is becomes supersonic does not have any influence on the Sun on any time scale of interest to us.

Pamela, ‘some of the things’ we can learn from the articles I have referred, can and do apply to our sun and its magnetic cycle. Our sun has what we call a heliocurrent sheath that is carried out with the wind and field. Our heliocurrent sheath will move in or out too.. much like what is described in these models, which are based on observation of other stars and their disks or current sheath.

Accretion onto Stars with Octupole Magnetic Fields: Matter Flow, Hot Spots and
Phase Shifts
Nov. 2011
Min Longa, Marina M. Romanovab, Frederick K. Lambc,dhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5455.pdf?origin=publication_detail
“It is possible, however, that the field can be varied or partially buried
during periods of enhanced accretion, as we discuss later in this paper (see
Sec. 5).”

December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA’s Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.
see caption“Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system,” explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. “This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all.”

The discovery has implications for the future when the solar system will eventually bump into other, similar clouds in our arm of the Milky Way galaxy.

Astronomers call the cloud we’re running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or “Local Fluff” for short. It’s about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it.
…
“Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss*,” says Opher. “This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction.”

So there is a giant bubble of superheated plasma, which would crush the Fluff except it also has a high enough pressure to resist it, and we are in the high pressure Fluff.

But as you keep reading, you’ll see the Sun’s magnetic field, extended by the solar winds, makes its own bubble that keeps the Fluff at bay.

So we are in a bubble that protects us from the cloud we are in which protects us from a bubble of supernova leftovers.

Carla says:
June 20, 2014 at 6:16 pmPamela, ‘some of the things’ we can learn from the articles I have referred, can and do apply to our sun and its magnetic cycle.
No, Carla. This is a recurring mistake of yours. The solar wind is supersonic and there is no reactions back on the sun or its magnetic cycle. I have lost track of how many times I have told you this, but you seem really hard of learning.

June 20, 2014 at 6:20 pm
…But as you keep reading, you’ll see the Sun’s magnetic field, extended by the solar winds, makes its own bubble that keeps the Fluff at bay….
————————————————————
Fluffy is not homogenous through out as previously thought. Many tech doc. of those like Dr. Linsky and P. Frisch who through spectral analysis of Na Ca II sight lines ( ever increasing data base) say there is structure that varies on shorter scales. Structures that exist inside of fluffy.
And have you seen the declining strength of all the facets of of the solar magnetic field?
The way in is also shrinking as the field shrinks, hello? And the wind declines and the out going density declines.
Parabola forms of interstellar neutrals at 1 AU, cause solar gravity. And of the incoming species, the helium and neon are focused down wind in a focusing cone and not found in the parabola upwind, unlike O, C, H etc. Earth orbits through the focusing cone in December. They know also that the down wind cone expands and contracts.
“The first signs of such a transformation could be the helium breeze thickening or shifting directions, heralding something new to come.” (2nd link)

1. Introduction
[2] Because of the Suns motion relative to the surrounding
interstellar medium interstellar atoms with high first ionization
potential penetrate deeply into the inner heliosphere
as an interstellar wind [e.g., Fahr, 1974]. These atoms enter
the heliosphere unimpeded by the heliospheric magnetic
field. Once close to the Sun, they are ionized, picked up
by the combined forces of the interplanetary magnetic and
the motional electric field of the solar wind, and can then be
observed as PickUp Ions (PUIs) [e.g., Möbius et al., 1985;
Gloeckler et al., 1998]. Because of the low relative speed
between heliosphere and the local interstellar medium, the
trajectories of atoms are gravitationally focused on the downwind
side of the Sun, thus leading to a substantial density
enhancement in the neutral gas distribution, termed the
focusing cone [Fahr, 1974], for all interstellar neutral species
except for hydrogen for which solar radiation pressure
compensates for gravitation……………………………….

Carla says:
June 20, 2014 at 7:02 pmAnd have you seen the declining strength of all the facets of of the solar magnetic field?
Carla, you just barrel on, oblivious to reason and science. None of what you refer to has any impact on the solar magnetic field.

Carla says:
June 20, 2014 at 7:45 pmHelio current sheet is also, also, taking longer to complete its contribution to the solar cycle. nooo
The current sheet does not contribute to the solar cycle at all. It is simply a consequence of the cycle, not a cause or contributor.

Leif, do you get the feeling these people just don’t understand the scale of what’s happening?

It’s like there’s a ground-burst atomic bomb explosion, and they’re arguing the nuclear reactions have to be affected by the pressure waves and electromagnetic radiation bouncing back off the buildings. Except the explosion never stops.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 20, 2014 at 9:49 pmLeif, do you get the feeling these people just don’t understand the scale of what’s happening?
Many people have little perception of the proportions. The solar wind is EXTREMELY tenuous and is moving away from the Sun many times faster than any magnetic perturbation could move upstream towards the Sun. Perhaps one should suggest that they move over to the dreamland of Tallbloke.

Yep, it might mean something someday if we’re colonizing other solar systems and traveling at a significant fraction of c, but until then it’s just much ado about (virtually) nothing. Arguing how much the trajectory of an eagle’s killing strike dive is altered by the eagle’s fart.

And by the late arrival of your comment timestamped before someone who was already up, it appears ShortSheila’s name hit the “awaiting mod” list so your comment languished there. Noted.

Carla,
I’m surprised that scientists have not noticed such important changes in the stratosphere, especially that at the same time the temperature dropped significantly in the central parts of the ozone layer.

lsvalgaard says:
“What D.A. is trying to claim is that we are heading for a Grand Minimum and that it is going to be cold. Unfortunately, SC24 does not seem to comply.”

Neither did SC5 around its maximum, 1804 and 1806 were warm in Europe, most of the cold in Dalton was during the following decade. I think that we are going to see a similar shift to colder conditions from 2016 to 2024.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 9:19 amNeither did SC5 around its maximum, 1804 and 1806 were warm in Europe, most of the cold in Dalton was during the following decade.
And likely helped along by very large volcanic eruptions in 1809, 1814, and 1815.

Leif, do you get the feeling these people just don’t understand the scale of what’s happening
————————————————————————————————————————–
You only show that you don’t understand the scale either.

Our sun compared to the size of the galaxy it orbits in, sun is 864,377 miles wide.
The milky way is 100,000 light years across and 1,000 light years thick.

A corotating interactive region on Earth is not the same size as a corotating interaction region on the sun.
A corotating interaction region from the sun, is not the same size as a corotating interaction region from interstellar space.

And ya think that huge expanses of expanding gas don’t accumulate and overlap during their expansion periods? Ask Dr. Linksy and P. Frisch if they don’t see a convergence of clouds infront of our heliosphere. Picture the clouds residing in corotating super shells, while inside the rotating shell the winds are calmer, but as you reach the outer rings the winds will change as will the density.

Thanks ren,
The Earlier start of winter last year bothered me too.
If the downwind helium/neon focusing cone thickened/widened Earth would have Entered it at an Earlier date. Thickening and widening would indicate an increase of interstellar neutrals to the interplanetary system.
See pages 16-17 for images depicting He/Ne focusing cone of interstellar neutrals and the associated up wind crescent at 1 AU.http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/publications/stereo_sr_2013_proposal.pdf

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 10:05 amYou only show that you don’t understand the scale either.
None of this matters. You are thinking about linear, spatial scales. The important scale to work with is the energy scale. It doesn’t matter for solar activity that the sun orbits in a galaxy 100,000 light years across which is millions of light years away from other galaxies, which in turn are spread over 94 billion light years to the edge of the visible universe. The solar wind is supersonic and keeps all the incoming stuff which could have a significant impact away.

“we can no longer assume that the heliosphere changes only because of the solar wind,” Frisch said
I like her..

Interstellar winds provide rare look at Milky Way’s complexityhttp://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/interstellar-winds-provide-rare-look-at-milky-ways-complexity#
Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:00 PM
…”Helium is gravitationally focused to create a trail of helium known as the ‘focusing cone’ behind the sun as it moves through space,” Frisch said.
The dense cone makes the particles easier to study as they pack in behind Earth’s star.
The changing wind could have implications that go beyond understanding the region surrounding the solar system. It could also affect studies of the charged particles streaming off the sun.

””When we try to understand the past and present heliosphere, we can no longer assume that the heliosphere changes only because of the solar wind,” Frisch said. “Now we have evidence that changes in the interstellar wind may be important.”‘

Carla, you have presented several lines of inquiry (your interpretation needs work though) related to solar mechanics. But I still do not see your connection to Earth’s temperature. Are you just bringing up as many things about the Sun as you possibly can hoping that something Solar-sourced sticks to the wall of Earth’s overall climate? What is your elevator speech “in a nutshell”?

By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | June 19, 2014 07:29am ET
The sun is supposed to be at the height of its 11-year activity cycle, but for the most part things have been pretty quiet.

That might be starting to change, however. The sun unleashed a series of three huge flares last week. Scientists are dubbing the sun’s exploits lately a “mini-max” because the maximum period of activity is shorter than usual. Today the sun is a pretty active place. Sunspots are popping up all over and lower-density areas (“holes”) are appearing in the sun’s corona, or superheated envelope of gas that surrounds our nearest star. You can watch a video about the sun’s “mini-max” to learn more about the current Solar Cycle 24.

“The sun’s magnetic field has flipped, we are starting to see the development of long coronal holes, and, oh yes, sunspot counts are cresting,” Dean Pesnell, a solar physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said in a statement. [See photos of the largest solar storms of 2014]

This situation demonstrates how hard it is to forecast a solar cycle. The average is 11 years, but it can take between 9 and 14 years for the sun to go from quiet to maximum and quiet again. Sometimes the cycle breaks, such as the infamous “Maunder minimum” that happened for 70 years in the 17th century, when few sunspots were visible. While this cycle is not quite that bad, it’s still a weakling.

“This solar cycle continues to rank among the weakest on record,”stated Ron Turner of Analytic Services Inc., who is a senior science advisor for NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts program. Cycle 24, he added, is one of the weakest in the 23 cycles since 1755……………………………..http://www.space.com/26287-sun-solar-cycle-mini-maximum-video.html

The sun’s bizarre peak has its roots in an odd time in 2008 and 2009, when sunspot numbers were far lower than scientists expected. Solar flares, which are associated with sunspot numbers and the sun’s magnetic activity, also fell quiet.

… Are you just bringing up as many things about the Sun as you possibly can hoping that something Solar-sourced sticks to the wall of Earth’s overall climate?…
——————————————————————————
Pam, are you cooking spaghetti? If it sticks to the wall its done..

What we know about other stars is important for our understanding of our own star. They all have similarities.

nut shell
All I know is that I know nothing, compared to what can be known.

Earth is unique Pam, because of its location in time. Newly found upwind crescent at 1 AU, as predicted over a decade before. Wow that’s special and unique to the Earth.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 10:29 amGravitational focusing is direct evidence that accretion doesn’t end at some earlier time in a stars history.
again, you show a lack of perception of scale. It is not about ‘accretion’ as such, it is about ‘how much’ and if it ever reaches the Sun. Anything approaching will be heated and ionized and picked up by the solar wind and swept right back out again. For the last time: none of what you talk about has any influence on solar activity on time scales that matters.

June 21, 2014 at 11:08 am
For the last time: none of what you talk about has any influence on solar activity on time scales that matters.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Blanket statement Dr. S., by use of the word none. Some, may have been a better choice.
The links speak for themselves.. many researchers involved..

The reconnection/accretion link for solar magnetic cycle phase shifts will be found somewhere around 3-5 solar radii, part of the extended corona. Hopefully some day soon..
Hmm should have a link for that somewhere. The accretion/reconnection that is.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 10:47 am
This situation demonstrates how hard it is to forecast a solar cycle.
Not so, I and colleagues have forecast the solar cycle successfully the past four cycles.
—————————
You are an exception Dr. S.

lsvalgaard says:
“And likely helped along by very large volcanic eruptions in 1809, 1814, and 1815.”

1811 was very warm so I doubt that the supposed 1809 event did much. Mayon was only VEI 4. Tambora could have helped low summer temperatures in 1816, but there could easily have been some sharp Ap index drops in 1816 as it was at sunspot cycle maximum.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:34 ambut there could easily have been some sharp Ap index drops in 1816 as it was at sunspot cycle maximum.
Generally Ap is rather high at solar maximum, and ‘could easily be’ is not real data. And there is but very scant evidence that Ap as such has anything to do with global temperatures.

The reconnection/accretion link for solar magnetic cycle phase shifts will be found somewhere around 3-5 solar radii, part of the extended corona. Hopefully some day soon..
Hmm should have a link for that somewhere. The accretion/reconnection that is.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:59 amCURRENT SHEETS AND MAGNETIC RECONNECTION IN ACCRETION DISK CORONAE
1) is not a link and shouting does not help.
2) does not apply to the Sun, but to stars that are still forming [T Tauri stars] where there is a LOT of accretion [the whole star has to form]..

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 9:19 am1804 and 1806 were warm in Europe, most of the cold in Dalton was during the following decade.
Not particularly: the average CET for 1800-1809 was a 9.14C and for 1810-1819 it was 8.82C, not much difference.

While we’re tossing out space-related questions, does anyone know what really is the propagation speed of gravity? I had thought since gravity is inherent there was no speed, it just is. But now I’m reading they believe it travels at c, speed of light in a vacuum, which to me brings up the possibility of a relative speed of gravity as it propagates through matter.

In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is larger than the speed of light in a vacuum. From this observation and the recent experiments, the structure of the fields of a moving source (a body or a charge) is studied. A method to measure the speed of gravitational force in laboratory and a line to indirectly test the wavelengths of gravitational waves are presented.

If gravity is faster than light, then we have faster than light communications when we figure out how to safely modulate gravity.

It looks like it’ll be awhile until we have gravity detectors coupled with telescopes that can tell us if the gravity from an ancient galaxy billions of years old is sensed before or when the first light from it reaches us.

So what are the current believable thoughts about the speed of gravity?

lsvalgaard says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Generally Ap is rather high at solar maximum, and ‘could easily be’ is not real data. And there is but very scant evidence that Ap as such has anything to do with global temperatures.”

And yet you know that there is typically a local minima in the Ap index at sunspot cycle maximum. Short term drops in regional temperatures would be the result, global temperatures could go up if there is an El Nino in response.

It continues to be my speculation that Quaternary volcanic explosions, of which there are very few that match the extent of the recently located but long identified Samalas 1257 eruption, have an important role to play related to the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected ENSO processes, especially eruptions that occur in important equatorial regions. During this Quaternary period, the locations of the land masses have been just about where they are today, so the global circulation patterns in the ocean and in the air would all be similar during this time span.

I speculate that significant disruptions in the normal course of ENSO heat energy discharge/recharge and oceanic surface circulation processes have long term affects that extend beyond the fall-out period and probably have step functions up and down as the ENSO system works its way back to normal energy discharge/recharge and surface circulation patterns that were in place prior to these large eruptions. I think this is one of the main sources of global temperature proxi fluctuations that were out of whack compared to pre-eruption proxies. That there were deeper solar minimums during identified Quaternary cold spells is more coincidence that cause. And I speculate this because aerosol loading is a far greater source of significant reduction in solar insolation than the Sun itself. Volcanic aerosols also have a far greater capacity to reduce ozone than the Sun itself.

For those trying to find a gnat’s hair sized needle in a solar barn full of hay, you fail at step one. You must rule out these far greater intrinsic sources of significant temperature change catalysts. Something I have yet to see you give anything but a blink of an eye attempt towards, if that.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:36 pmMost of the colder years in Dalton were in the period 1807 to 1817
You mean just including the years of 1809, 1814, 1815. I thought so :-)

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:42 pmAnd yet you know that there is typically a local minima in the Ap index at sunspot cycle maximum.
Typically a shallow minimum. If that has any effect, then sunspot minimum should have a much larger effect, and none is found.

It is amazing that some people keep repeating the same stale non-effects in every post.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm
But now there is new work at arXiv, originally published in Chinese Physical Letters in 2011 but arXiv has up to v8 from Nov 2013, which Wikipedia described as:

In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is larger than the speed of light in a vacuum.
————————————————————————————————————————
I suppose it one subscribes to the theory that what we call gravity is just mass warping space, then there is no need to worry about that. If all other masses within the confines of the Sun’s gravity well are constantly affected there is no time differential involved.

lsvalgaard says:
“Typically a shallow minimum. If that has any effect, then sunspot minimum should have a much larger effect, and none is found.”

The local Ap minima at maximum are there on cycles 21 and 19, hardly shallow minimums:
As you know the larger Ap drop is just after minimum, and there is plenty of evidence for negative AO/NAO, El Nino, and cold in the mid latitudes in these periods.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:56 pmSome good reading which all need to be aware of.
Indeed. After a Decade of Struggle, Lockwood et al. (2014) are Fast Approaching the Svalgaard et al. Reconstructions of 2003. This is a healthy development and Lockwood at al. should be congratulated for their achievement

Ulric Lyons says:
June 21, 2014 at 1:19 pmAs you know the larger Ap drop is just after minimum, and there is plenty of evidence for negative AO/NAO, El Nino, and cold in the mid latitudes in these periods.
Not that I know of. Plenty of flimsy claims, though

Coincident cycles and oscillations completely disconnected from one another happen all the time in nature as well as in human-created machines. The trick is to know enough about the sciences involved in plausible mechanisms to steel against making implausible and vacuously thin connection statements.

Working with the obsolete SSN numbers is a guessing game, while Reykjavik atmospheric pressure (north component of the NAO, the proper 150 year long instrumental record from a single location) is a good guide to N. Atlantic’s SST, which in turn drives N. Hemisphere temperatures suggests about 0.25C cooling during forthcoming decade.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RAP-AMO.htm
The Svalgaard – Archibald web’s confrontations will be soon speedily dispatched to history.

I suppose it one subscribes to the theory that what we call gravity is just mass warping space, then there is no need to worry about that. If all other masses within the confines of the Sun’s gravity well are constantly affected there is no time differential involved.

It may eventually be of concern when passing nearby a fast-moving rogue black hole if you will be drawn to where it is or where it used to be. Interstellar travel when rationally proposed involves long drifting periods with minimal energy and propellant usage.

Pair production is invoked to predict the existence of hypothetical Hawking radiation. According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole.

There is no negative gravity, no opposite charge. The particles appear, gravity provides kinetic energy to the universe by moving matter towards the particles, the particles go away. The mass of the universe was not changed, but wasn’t energy added? If energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed but merely transformed into each other, where did the “extra” energy come from?

PS to last comment: Yes, the kinetic energy vectors would sum to zero as everything moved to the same point, so you could say no energy was added. Except there would still be frictional etc losses so it would still be a net energy release. Entropy always gets a piece of the action.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 21, 2014 at 2:29 pmPS to last comment:
We shouldn’t really be discussing this off-topic issue, but it is very possible that the total energy of the universe is precisely and exactly zero.

Working with the obsolete SSN numbers is a guessing game, while Reykjavik atmospheric pressure (north component of the NAO, the proper 150 year long instrumental record from a single location) is a good guide to N. Atlantic’s SST, which in turn drives N. Hemisphere temperatures suggests about 0.25C cooling during forthcoming decade.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RAP-AMO.htm

Top graph, blue trend line (SST) looks like you took a linear fit over 2 1/4 cycles, not only full cycles. Fail.

Top graph, red trend line (Reykjavik AP) right endpoint looks like it does align with the right end of the data, but left endpoint aligns with the left end of the blue (SST) data. And you’re still taking a linear fit over about 2 1/4 cycles, not only full cycles. Double fail.

If you had used the proper left red end, the slope would have been considerably less. Except it’s still messed up by not using only whole cycles, so that one won’t count.

The Svalgaard – Archibald web’s confrontations will be soon speedily dispatched to history.

True, it is too easy to guess the winner to make them memorable. But Archibald has a cunning strategy to come out ultimately victorious, he’s secretly planning to outlive Leif.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:59 am
CURRENT SHEETS AND MAGNETIC RECONNECTION IN ACCRETION DISK CORONAE
1) is not a link and shouting does not help.
2) does not apply to the Sun, but to stars that are still forming [T Tauri stars] where there is a LOT of accretion [the whole star has to form]..
——————————————————————————————-
1) conveys the message – copy, pasted title
2) all stars are evolving and undergo similar processes, rotation + gravity = accretion

What about the stability of the heliocurrent sheet or lack of stability during an evolving low magnetic field period. Heliocurrent sheet at distance must have an evolving, weakening and vulnerable to inward propagating corotation regions. And rotation and changes within the corona where it starts.

Current sheets tear, get pressed in, deformed, develop instabilities associated with corotating interaction regions. They come in all sizes. whew

In the current period 1957-2014 the solar magnetic cycle went from Almost hitting the Ceiling to falling down to the FLOOR. And nobody thinks there could have been changes in solar differential rotation parameters over the period? But we see changes in surface circulations.
polar rotation, equator rotation, corona rotation includes some super corotation region and heliocurrent sheet rotation

How did this happen.
Picture 2 huge rotating magnetic shells with current sheets. Lets call them S1 and S2 super shell and they are nearby our Local Interstellar vicinity. S1 and S2 are merging, overlapping as evidenced by a narrow band cloud called MIC. MIC cloud is between Local cloud and G cloud.
G cloud is part the Apex cloud group moving from a different direction than our headwind from Oph.
Sounds like turbulence.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 5:56 pmSounds like turbulence.
Sounds like nonsense.Heliocurrent sheet at distance must have an evolving, weakening and vulnerable to inward propagating corotation regions.
Current sheet flows outward. Carla, your missives are beginning to sounds like verbal diarrhea, no coherence, regurgitating words and concepts you do not understand. You are a hard case.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 5:36 pmAnd nobody thinks there could have been changes in solar differential rotation parameters over the period?
We have all looked at all this. Do you think we are morons?
In http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf we study solar rotation since 1878 and find [as expected] that the more magnetic the sun it, the more rigid its differential rotation. In any case, all this is controlled from inside the sun, not from the outside.

Dr. S., you can’t compartmentalize the solar system from the galaxy it is embedded in. Nor from the local and circumheliospheric interstellar medium (CHISM) it is embedded in.
By so doing you set limitations on your own understanding of all the different mechanisms at work here and how it all interplays together. hello good night..

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:26 pmDr. S., you can’t compartmentalize the solar system from the galaxy it is embedded in. Nor from the local and circumheliospheric interstellar medium (CHISM) it is embedded in.
Of course one can, when one understands the physics and the energies involved. But in your case, to quote Al gore: “when you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.

June 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm
..In any case, all this is controlled from inside the sun, not from the outside…
—————————————————————————————————
In that case you make our star the only exception to what rules in the rest of the stellar systems around the galaxy.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:31 pmIn that case you make our star the only exception to what rules in the rest of the stellar systems around the galaxy.
You have no idea what ‘rules the rest of the stellar systems’ [you just think you have]. The sun is not special and the same laws and rules apply everywhere when conditions are comparable.

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:31 pmIn that case you make our star the only exception to what rules in the rest of the stellar systems around the galaxy.
Here is the deal: find us a SINGLE paper that shows and explicitly claims that the interstellar medium controls contemporary solar activity. Then we’ll discuss that and the arguments employed.

This chart shows that Carl is right. This chart shows that the cosmic radiation that reaches the Earth jumps, despite the slow changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. This means that the changes in solar activity and cosmic ray intensity.

You can see a clear effect of solar activity on the temperature of the equator. At the turn of 2013 and 2014 activity was high. Activity fell and the temperature dropped.
At the turn of 2013 and 2014 the temperature has increased significantly, but again decreases. There were chances for El Niño, but the situation is changing.
Such was the temperature from 1997 to 1998.

You can see a clear effect of solar activity on the temperature of the equator. At the turn of 2013 and 2014 activity was high. Activity fell and the temperature dropped.[SSN chart for cycle 24 showing North and South hemispheres]

Equator, which I’ll translate as tropics, seeing if activity drops while temperature drops, and assume the reverse so activity rises while temperature rises.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: June 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm
…
Mr KD Knoebel, thanks for your interest.
As you well know, the linear trend lines for quasi-periodic oscillations (you referred to as cycles) are next to meaningless for any estimates of the near future projections (discussed extensively in past on WUWT), thus your observations may be ‘interesting’ but as related to the subjects substance, to put it politely, irrelevant.
Having in mind the quasi-oscillatory nature of the variables, the estimate of possible temperature fall is based, not on the above mentioned linear trend lines, but simply on the two end values in the second graph

As you well know, the linear trend lines for quasi-periodic oscillations (you referred to as cycles) are next to meaningless for any estimates of the near future projections (discussed extensively in past on WUWT), thus your observations may be ‘interesting’ but as related to the subjects substance, to put it politely, irrelevant.

The linear trend lines are so next to meaningless you included them on the first graph, and give indication those next to meaningless trend lines were used for detrending for the second graph. Which would make the second graph next to meaningless, perhaps closer.

What are your data sources? You don’t list them, making attempts at replication quite difficult and open to charges that exact dataset was not used.

Otherwise, what I get from your graph is it roughly shows the surface atmosphere is possibly isothermal over time. When temperature goes up thus more average kinetic energy per molecule, the pressure also drops thus less molecules per volume, thus energy per volume is maintained.

But then the energy content of the sea surface atmosphere is controlled by the water temperature. You had said on June 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm:

…N. Atlantic’s SST, which in turn drives N. Hemisphere temperatures…

So your graph can show how SST controls the temperatures around Reykjavik which strongly influences the air pressure. But it cannot show Reykjavik air pressure predicting North Hemisphere temperatures, causality goes the wrong way.

So there you have it. For the most recent planetary warming period, the AMO precedes the SSN which precedes the PDO. The graphs prove it. Figure out the mechanisms and your Nobel Prize awaits. Not the Peace Prize either, but a real one.

I’m actually eager to read how the AMO controls the SSN when the Earth warms. Please don’t write it up too complex.

lsvalgaard
Have you seen the new studies?
Six chronologies based on the growth of Scots pine from the inland of northern Fennoscandia were built to separately enhance low, medium, and higher frequencies in growth variability in 1000–2002. Several periodicities of growth were found in common in these data. Five of the low-frequency series have a significant oscillatory mode at 200–250 years of cycle length. Most series also have strong multidecadal scale variability and significant peaks at 33, 67, or 83–125 years. Reconstruction models for mean July and June–August as well as three longer period temperatures were built and compared using stringent verification statistics. We describe main differences in model performance (R^2 = 0.53–0.62) between individual proxies as well as their various averages depending on provenance and proxy type, length of target period, and frequency range. A separate medium-frequency chronology (a proxy for June–August temperatures) is presented, which is closely similar in amplitude and duration to the last two cycles of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). The good synchrony between these two series is only hampered by a 10-year difference in timing. Recognizing a strong medium-frequency component in Fennoscandian climate proxies helps to explain part of the uncertainties in their 20th century trends.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcli/2014/578761/abs/

ren says:
June 22, 2014 at 9:25 amHave you seen the new studies?
Six chronologies based on the growth of Scots pine from the inland of northern Fennoscandia were built to separately enhance low, medium, and higher frequencies in growth variability in 1000–2002.
At least these people are smart enough not to attribute the variations they find to the Sun.

lsvalgaard says: June 22, 2014 at 8:59 amNot at all. Very clear and concise debunking.

Hi Doc
Nice to here from you.
As you may well know, Reykjavik atmospheric pressure doesn’t influence NA SST, one could consider it a precursor without a direct consequence. Reykjavik AP’s peaks and troughs during last century, were some years ahead of the NA SST, and consequently it is also unlikely that NA SST would change the RAP some decades later.
Reykjavik AP is a function of what is going on in Greenland and the Nordic seas, while more than 75% of NA SST is from many thousands of miles further south. Perhaps in your haste you failed to notice that the average NA SST (including winters) is just under 21C.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RAP-AMO.htm
As you also may well know, Iceland is most of the time well north of the polar jet stream, but to assume that the subtropical jet stream reaches Iceland is, well stretching it a big bit, even for the time of the MWP.
I’d suggest: the comment you refer to: it is not clear, it is not concise and for debunking, you are of course, as anyone else is, entitled to your views and opinions.
! force is with tectonics !

Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm
In that case you make our star the only exception to what rules in the rest of the stellar systems around the galaxy.
Here is the deal: find us a SINGLE paper that shows and explicitly claims that the interstellar medium controls contemporary solar activity. Then we’ll discuss that and the arguments employed.
———————————————————————————————————————–
And I will do just that, as soon as I find a model/simulation that includes the role of the interstellar magnetic field in the accretion process. lol

Until then, first article has some interesting stellar magnetic field models used in it to show matter accretes to a star. And how this accretion process by differing magnetic field strengths of the dipoles and octupoles produces spots on the star. Don’t miss all the fun Dr. S.

Of particular interest is what the models reveal in the case of parallel and antiparallel accretion and the solar magnetosphere asymmetry that occurs under each case.
Now How might a parallel or antiparallel interstellar magnetic field play a role in that?

Two issues with Ren’s linked article:
1. A bigger problem than what Ren creates (attempting a Sun-connection, which there was none) has to do with treemometers that appear to be, based on the article Ren links, capable of telling the researchers that this amount of growth in this ring back in the day was caused by natural factors but this here other amount of growth, though extremely similar to the former, was caused by in part or whole, anthropogenic factors. How does the tree know to tell us?

2. In addition, the funding source is an environmentally sustainable focused organization though the authors state no conflict of interest. Bullsh**. Researchers are likely “encouraged” to toe the line and make their teat payment somewhere in their published article. Too bad. I thought the research was quite good. That is until the teat payment came passed my eyes. The focus of the research was primarily focused on creating a high-quality treemometer data set, which I think it did. It spent very little time on researching the AMO signal as a correlating piece, and no time at all researching anthropogenic factors. Yet their final paragraph spends quite a bit of time on both.

A proper conclusion or summary provides an overarching summary of researched findings without putting in something new that was not part of the focused research. The body of the text gave no mention of studying anthropogenic CO2 and a sidenote on the AMO. Why put it in the conclusion? Why make it the last statement that will invariably stick in your mind like the last song you heard? Here’s why: Teat sucking payment.

Here is the last paragraph of the article which goes too far in my opinion and makes statements not supported by their research:

“We can explain the otherwise peculiar general view of the 20th century by presuming that the growth surge and corresponding warming in the early half of the 20th century are part of a widespread dominant cycle taking place along a rising centennial trend (both types are evident in the l-f and m-f series). It is within reason to link the early multidecadal features more closely to natural phenomena and the overall 20th century rise to external forcing. Analyzing different frequency ranges in proxies will potentially help in meeting a major future challenge to separate the externally forced from internally driven variations (both natural and external components integrated in long records) for the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change.

Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.”

Carla says:
June 22, 2014 at 10:56 amAnd I will do just that, as soon as I find a model/simulation that includes the role of the interstellar magnetic field in the accretion process. lol
So far you have nothing. And the cases you peddle are not applicable to the Sun in the first place as the Sun is not accreting in the sense the term is used in stellar astronomy.

Maybe we should require authors to state that, “The authors declare no conflict of interests regarding the conclusions of this paper.” And until we can force tax payer dependent funding sources to remove bias as a requirement for funding, we will continue to get teat payments.

Harvard had an article a while back discussing rotations compressional and extentional forces.
As rotation begins to increase the north pole experiences more compressional force.
An incremental increase in rotation by 1999 might be manifest, when a volcano, under the ocean, at the North Pole, on Gakkel ridge, went off with the force compared to when Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius. They have since found a mini continent growing. Compression and broken ice also come to mind.

IAUS 314: Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun
…
The region surrounding the Sun out to a distance of ~100 pc is often described as the “local bubble” due to the relatively low density of the interstellar medium and an accompanying lack of regions of star formation. In the past two decades, research by many astronomers has revealed an abundance of post T Tauri stars and early type stars of comparable age inside of the bubble. Many of these stars have been classified as members of (~10) identified kinematic moving groups, whose ages range from ~8 Myr up to ~200 Myr. Because these stellar groups are so close to Earth, they provide some of the best samples available to astronomy to investigate the early evolution of low- to intermediate-mass stars. While these nearby, youthful stars are themselves of great interest to stellar astronomy, they also represent the most readily accessible targets for direct imaging (and other measurements) of dusty circumstellar debris disks and young, substellar objects — i.e., newly formed brown dwarfs and, especially, planets. Indeed, <200 Myr-old stars within ~100 pc represent the best laboratories to study the conditions and timescales associated with protoplanetary disk evolution and the formation and early physical and dynamical evolution of planetary systems.

To exploit this potential for progress in understanding the early evolution of stars and planetary systems, we are proposing a 2015 IAU Symposium dedicated to the study of young stars and planets near the Sun. Our aim is to gather, for the first time, scientists working on nearby young stars from all of the important perspectives — ranging from the identification, ages, and origins of local young moving groups, through the early evolution of low- to intermediate-mass stars, to the structures of nascent or recently formed exoplanet systems (i.e., the dispersal of protoplanetary disks, the nature of debris disks, and signatures of planet-disk interactions).
…

April 27 – May 1, 2015, Atlanta.

I wonder why Carla is going on about stellar accretion with interstellar media, when our local region has “relatively low density” thus there’s little out there our Sun could pick up anyway.

And now I’m getting lost.
“Local bubble” 100 parsec = 326 light years = 3,100,000,000,000,000 km (3.1E15).
Voyager 1 had crossed the heliopause in 2012 at about 121 AU = 18,000,000,000 km (1.8E10)
We are in the Local Fluff which is about 30 ly wide = 2.8E14 km (ly = 9.46E12 km)

So we are in the heliosphere bubble which is in the Fluff, which is in the bubble of high-pressure supernova leftovers and/or the “local bubble” of relatively low density interstellar media?

Is the high-pressure leftovers bubble the same as the low-density bubble?

lsvalgaard says: June 22, 2014 at 10:56 amnuts, as usual.
Dr. Svalgaard here are some facts you are well aware of :
– Iceland is most of the time to the north of the polar jet
– Reykjavik atmospheric pressure leads AMO by 6-8 years
– North Atlantic average SST as high as 20.8C
– Subtropical jet stream, south of which the most of the SST comes from, never reaches anywhere near Iceland.
What tectonics has to do with it?
Well, as it happens an awful lot: Iceland with its extremely productive volcanic activity, 2% of volcanic eruptions since 1600s, but with 30% of total volcanic ejected material, during the same period; millions of m3 of volcanic ash settling on the Arctic ice (albedo factor). Denmark Strait with 1000m deep volcanic and glacial sediments spread over more than thousands of km2, Reykjanes and Kolbensey ridges with only recently discovered submarine volcanic eruptions, rise of a micro-continent to the south of Svalbaard; the Nordic Seas, the most likely location for initiating the Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, etc, etc
A bit disappointed from a scientist, who is not only well familiar with Iceland, but also spent a part of his scientific career in the nearby Greenland, and what you offer to the readers is ‘nuts, as usual’.

In http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf we study solar rotation since 1878 and find [as expected] that the more magnetic the sun it, the more rigid its differential rotation. In any case, all this is controlled from inside the sun, not from the outside.
—————————————————————–
Thanks for the link Dr. S. Just looking now..

Carla says:
Better view of the battle between the South Pole Vortex and the Equator. (10 hPa)
More interesting will be in July and August, when there are spikes in temperature. Now the vortex accelerates. If you will fall clearly solar activity vortex will be inhibited.

Carla, you have completely lost me. I was hoping for your speculation on all the parameters you have brought up, this current solar cycle, and your speculations on connections to Earth’s long term weather pattern variations.

My speculation is that there is no observable connection. Temperature trend observations locally, regionally, and globally are quite noisy with intrinsic natural sourced variability on long and short term time scales.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 1:32 pmYou can hardly deny that the big temperature spikes coincide with the big Ap drop from ~1yr after minimum.
Yes I can, because this does not happen all the time [the past 150 years], so what you are claiming are just coincidental [and furthermore lacks a mechanism: Ap to ENSO?]

lsvalgaard says:
“Yes I can, because this does not happen all the time [the past 150 years], so what you are claiming are just coincidental [and furthermore lacks a mechanism: Ap to ENSO?]”

That’s because big Ap index drops just after sunspot minimum don’t happen all the time, stronger El Nino are only going to occur where the drop is big enough. Same with the Ap drop at sunspot maximum. The mechanism could be the solar wind speed effecting polar pressure and jet stream latitude, modulating the trade winds.

Ulric, then measure solar wind speed against polar pressure against jet stream latitude, against trade winds. If you find less than significant correlation between and across a long enough time span to reduce degrees of freedom you should be able to determine the observational voracity of your speculation.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 2:17 pmThat’s because big Ap index drops just after sunspot minimum don’t happen all the time, stronger El Nino are only going to occur where the drop is big enough.
All that is just hand-waving. To make a verifiable statement, you need to quantify things: measure the size of the drops, the size of the temperature rises, measure the closeness of their occurrence, etc and then show statistically that there is plausibility of your claim. Eye-balling doesn’t cut it.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 2:17 pmThe mechanism could be the solar wind speed effecting polar pressure
And how would it do that? The solar wind dynamic pressure is many trillions of times smaller than the polar pressure.

In the past, once or twice you referred to your car and a flat tyre.
Motorcar velocity doesn’t always correlate to the same degree to the constant pressure you may exert on the gas pedal. It only does when you are on flat even surface, but not on the bend, not on up slope, not on down slope, and even could roll backwards at a 15 degree incline with a pedal pressure that on flat surface would propel it at 15 to 20 mph forward. Not to mention volcanic eruptions, i.e. occasional flat tyre.
TSIs constant pressure ‘gas pedal’ and the atmosphere-ocean thermodynamic systems are far more complex and variable than the robust design of a motor vehicle.

vuk says:
June 22, 2014 at 2:59 pmthe atmosphere-ocean thermodynamic systems are far more complex and variable than the robust design of a motor vehicle.
Which is why Ulric’s and your simplistic eye-balling is rather worthless. Good that you finally recognize that.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 3:21 pmMaybe it is effected by the rate of Joule heating of the upper polar atmosphere.
‘Maybe’ this, maybe that. Not mechanisms. Hot air moves up, not down. The Joule heating for a large substorm is of the order of 0.01 W/m2 over the polar cap, not much to speak of.

…and even could roll backwards at a 15 degree incline with a pedal pressure that on flat surface would propel it at 15 to 20 mph forward.

Good Lord man, get that clutch fixed! The engine should stall out and the car be held in place rather than roll backwards. How are you supposed to park in gear on a hill with a clutch that bad? Do it now for your family!

March 22, 2012: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
…
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 4:39 pmYou don’t say, circulation pattern changes could penetrate down through the atmosphere.
The stratosphere does not circulate.

While; “For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh”
To show how much you understand, please convert that into Watt/m2. If you cannot, then you have nothing.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 22, 2014 at 7:09 pmDid I do that right?
I wanted Ulric to do it! Now you spoiled that :-)
The point is that his huge number 26 billion kWh is really of the same puny magnitude as the 0.01 W/m2 I gave, thus not much and negligible in the energy budget of the Earth.

Ren, at 17,500 m you are in the lower layer of the stratosphere unless you are at the poles. At the equator you are actually below the stratosphere at 17,500 m. That’s probably why, at 17,000 m you see wind circulation at the poles more than you do on other places of the globe at the earth.nullschool site.

From wikipedia: At moderate latitudes the stratosphere is situated between about 10–13 km (33,000–43,000 ft; 6.2–8.1 mi) and 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi) altitude above the surface, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (26,000 ft; 5.0 mi) altitude, and near the equator it may start at altitudes as high as 18 km (59,000 ft; 11 mi).